A难题+分析不多的A题目+A高频分析汇总

金枝UID: 2279867

137 The following appeared in an editorial in the Mason City newspaper.

"At present, Mason City residents seldom use the nearby Mason River for any kind of recreational activity, even though surveys of the region's residents consistently rank water sports (swimming, fishing, and boating) as a favorite form of recreation. Since there have been complaints about the quality of the water in the river, residents must be avoiding the river because they think that it is not clean enough. But that situation is about to change: the agency responsible for rivers in our region has announced plans to clean up Mason River. Therefore, recreational use of the river is likely to increase, so the Mason City council will need to increase its budget for improvements to the publicly owned lands along the Mason River."

论断：政府需要为河边的公共场所的改善增加支出，因为河上娱乐可能会上升。目前居民很少用河进行娱乐，尽管对他们的调查一直说这是他们最喜欢的娱乐方式。由于一直有关于河水质量的抱怨，居民必须避开河水。不过这种情况会有改变，负责我们这个区的机构宣布了清理河的计划。
•前提，河水干净了河上娱乐会上升。尽管论者本地居民一直把水上运动列为他们最喜欢的运动，但由于长时间很少有人使用它，我们并不知道居民是否愿意在M河上进行这种娱乐。M河有可能不适合。
•前提，河水会干净。机构宣布了计划，不一定河水就能干净，污染程度，还有工作效率，都不一定能达到标准。
•结论，公共场所需要改进吗？不一定吧。结论：这篇社论没有了解当地情况，也不知道前景如何，政府的决策还需考虑。

我的提纲:
1.曾经存在投诉不能说明现在也存在投诉,而且太武断了，就凭过去对水的质量的投诉就认为人们觉得河水不干净才不在那活动.
2. 调查是否科学.样本是否科学.就算调查可靠,人们把水上娱乐做为他们最喜欢的娱乐形式不能说明人们就愿意去水上运动.也许只是一种意愿.行动和意愿是两回事.
3.就算河流的娱乐用途可能将会增加,也不一定就要增加改善M河沿岸公共土地的预算，也许根本都不用改善，或者改善的费用太庞大,根本都支付不起.或者人们都反对改善良而希望保持沿岸土地的原貌.

[ 本帖最后由 金枝 于 2007-3-3 19:53 编辑 ]

金枝UID: 2279867

140 The following appeared in a report of the Committee on Faculty Promotions and Salaries at Elm City University.

"During her seventeen years as a professor of botany, Professor Thomas has proved herself to be well worth her annual salary of $50,000. Her classes are among the largest at the university, demonstrating her popularity among students. Moreover, the money she has brought to the university in research grants has exceeded her salary in each of the last two years. Therefore, in consideration of Professor Thomas' demonstrated teaching and research abilities, we recommend that she receive a $10,000 raise and a promotion to Department Chairperson; without such a raise and promotion, we fear that Professor Thomas will leave Elm City University for another college."


论断：我们建议给T教授加1万元薪水，并升任系主任。不这样做担心T教授会去另的学校。而在该教授17年的植物学教授的职业经历中，她已证明她非常值目前的年薪。她的课是学校的最大的，说明她在学生中很受欢迎。另外她过去两年每年带给学校的研究经费已经超出了她的薪水。
•前提，T教授可以会去别的学校。论者没有给出资料为什么为有这样的担心。
•前提，T教授值得这样的建议。首先课堂大与受学生欢迎没有必然联系，有可能她的课是必须上的。其次研究经费只在过去两年的情况，不一定以后还会有。教学能力好，不一定能当主任。琐事多，当心少了一个好教授，多了一个无能的主任。这样的情况也许也不只她一人，理由不充足当心引起其他人不满。
•结论，如果有地儿要挖T教授，是否加薪和升职就能挡得住。学生学校的声誉，可以给她改善研究设施和环境。结论：好的教授不一定是好的主任，好的教授也不会仅因为物质条件决定去留。

我的提纲:
1. 班级最大不等于受欢迎
2,没有加薪和升值就会离开这学校没有根据.
3.带来的研究捐助在过去的两年中超过了她的年薪.首先,她的年薪是多少，带来的捐助又是多少不知道.无法判断是多是少.其次，别的教授带来的捐助又是多少也没说，也许别的教授带来的捐助少与他们自己的工资，但是数量却比T教授要多的多.

[ 本帖最后由 金枝 于 2007-3-3 20:00 编辑 ]

金枝UID: 2279867

142 The article entitled 'Eating Iron' in last month's issue of Eating for Health reported that a recent study found a correlation between high levels of iron in the diet and an increased risk of heart disease. Further, it is well established that there is a link between large amounts of red meat in the diet and heart disease, and red meat is high in iron. On the basis of the study and the well-established link between red meat and heart disease, we can conclude that the correlation between high iron levels and heart disease, then, is most probably a function of the correlation between red meat and heart disease.

0706G同主题分析:
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... C%E2%D0%B4%D7%F7%2B

论断：红肉和心脏病的关联很可能是含铁量高和心脏病的关联造成的。因为一个研究的成果以及已成立的红肉和心脏病之间的联系。这篇文章说最近的研究发现高含铁量的配餐与升高的心脏病危险有关联。而且饮食中大量的红肉成份和心脏病的联系是已确立的，红肉里的铁含量高。（unoxidated iron.calcium,heroin,rusty iron,compound）
•没有提供资料的前提：红肉与心脏病之间的联系，没数据，没研究，没调查。含量？食用方式？
•不一定成立的前提，即使红肉与心脏病的联系成立，没有资料证明红肉食用多的铁吸收就会多。有可能红肉的铁不容易被吸收的话。
•论据，研究结果不确切，高含铁量与心脏病之间的联系是怎样？铁对身体的影响有很多种，一定铁的摄入对身体是有好处的，非氧化铁，锈铁有区别。结论：红肉的含的铁是怎样的，不一定会是造成心脏病的。所以不能得出结论红肉与心脏病的联系不是其它因素造成。

css :https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... page%3D2&page=2
1 无科学根据，太笼统
2 很棒! 心脏病他因引起
3 聪明！铁与心脏病无关，他因

lakeqian :https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... &extra=page%3D2
主要攻击function这点
如果人们根本不吃红肉，那么红肉中含铁怎么会导致贴于心脏病关系呢？？可能是其他含铁事物导致。
另外，本题没有考察病因。全篇在说correlation。所以不要用关系不等于因果这条。

注意：
well established是不用攻击的。
function是函数的意思。A is a function of B 指B得出A(即使我们把function理解成作用，结论是一样的:B是本质，A是现象)
本题根本没有推导原因：通篇都在谈CORRELATION而没有得出病因！因此不要写原题的因果关系不成立或相关推不出因果。原题根本没有因果嘛。

原题的逻辑是：study说明铁与病有关（可以无奈的做个庸俗攻击）；well established的理论说明肉和病有关，且肉里铁多。得出：肉与病的关系--〉铁与病的关系。关键证伪这个“--〉”即function
由于两个论据实际上只是描述现象（关系）因此都没的攻击，只有结论可攻击。

关于下面两篇参考文章中的问题：
silentwings的错误：red meat引起心脏病------------> red meat 里面还有大量的铁 ------------------> 高铁引起心脏病。
原题没说引起。

happyman2000的错误：这是一个变态的句子，根据我们的常理，以上因果关系应当完全倒过来才说得通，所以，故意颠倒原因与结果。happyman2000似乎认为：铁是一种可能致病的元素，而红肉只是载体，因此应该是铁与病有关->肉与病有关。
但是本题恰是肉与病有关已经well established，不是故意颠倒因果（但这道题是故意难为我们的）。大家不要想当然。
他的攻击：直接攻击，1，铁不一定能引起心脏病；2，即使铁能引起心脏病，并不意味着含铁的红肉能引起心脏病。显然不对。

但是happyman的这句话是对的：上文最后一句话的理解应该就是铁与心脏病的关系是由红肉与心脏病的关系决定的，即红肉和心脏病有关系，所以铁才和心脏病有关系。

我们要说明这个function不成立 。方法：given铁与心脏病有关系，且红肉与心脏病也有关系，但如果人们不吃红肉而吃其他的高铁食物 （他因），那么，原题结论function就完蛋了。
另外：常见的攻击方法：肉里有其他致病物导致心脏病。似乎是无效的，因为不论怎么折腾病因，相关关系还是存在的！攻击无效。


参考文章：
slientwing:
析题：仔细读过，发现这道题有点绕，很多考生曾经有过这样的困惑：“我没有理解最后一句话的意思 is most probably a function of the correlation between red meat and heart disease.是说 high iron level 于 heart disease之间的关系 是 red meat 与 heart disease之间有关的结果 那作者到底是认为 high iron level 和 heart disease之间有没有关系阿？” 再读之下，我们会发现作者其实做了一个顺接推论：red meat引起心脏病------------> red meat 里面还有大量的铁 ------------------> 高铁引起心脏病，就是这么一个简单的推论过程，关键认清谁推出谁，就要在审题时注意到关键的这么看似不经意却被友好的ETS“重复两次”的短语“well established”，也就是说“大量红肉与心脏病之间一定有联系”是不容质疑的论据，即本题论据是不容批驳的，关键问题在于由论据推导出结论的时候犯了“Implicit causal claims”和“gratuitous assumptions”（详细逻辑谬误分类见后文 “七宗罪”），因而我们就可以以次展开攻击。很多来自网上的文章和提纲在本题上颠倒了推导对象，把“高铁引起心脏病”作为论据来推出“red meat引起心脏病”，结果导致文章失误。下面读者可通过以下范文检验一下该论证过程和思路：
（范文）
The correlation of the high irons level and heart disease the arguer trying to prove is not as perfect as he assumes. Although at first glance, his cause-and-effect analysis seems quite cogent, yet it can't stand much reexamination.

I agree to the well-established theory concerning the necessary relation between the large amount of red meat in people's diet and heart disease, but no other possibilities can be ruled out except for one of the ingredients-iron. It is obvious that the arguer constructs his building of conclusion on the basis of the conviction of the deleterious function stems from the iron. While not only a single iron does red meat contain, as we all know, many other components also have the influential role once being indigested into human body. For instance, some type of particular protein it might include, instead of the iron, is the substantial root of heart attack. So the arguer's peroration has no convincing power for this gratuitous assumption.

Moreover, even though his deduction does really derive from some passage of authoritative researches he has no opportunity to list below, the assertion about the high levels of iron related to the possibility of heart disease cannot be got through by merely so qualified the evidence exhibited here. According to the arguer's elicitation, we believe the red meat does contain large amount of iron, however, we might ask ourselves such questions enlightened by our common sense, "Does the amount of iron involved in red meat reach the dangerous level enough to lead to heart disease?" The answer we can't obtain through this short argument, thus directly make us doubt the whole fruits the arguer attained.

As it stands, the study reported on the published media Eating for Health is inevitable filled with some lethal logic fallacies, which finally weakens the cogency of the whole claims. To such a paramount and sensitive issue relative to people's health and life, scrutiny is not allowed to be neglected; and it is just for this point, I'm afraid, no people could ultimately abjure for eating red meat as a result of reading this ridiculous article. (352 words)

happyman2000
No.1 再讨论一道argument超级难题，argument 142
142.The article entitled 'Eating Iron' in last month's issue of Eating for Health reported that a recent study found a correlation between high levels of iron in the diet and an increased risk of heart disease. Further, it is well established that there is a link between large amounts of red meat in the diet and heart disease, and red meat is high in iron. On the basis of the study and the well-established link between red meat and heart disease, we can conclude that the correlation between high iron levels and heart disease, then, is most probably a function of the correlation between red meat and heart disease.

这个题目的理解关键在于最后一句话，从字典中查到对function的一个解释，
Something closely related to another thing and dependent on it for its existence, value, or significance: 应变物与另一决定它的存在、价值或重要性的事物密切相关的事物。
例句：1，Growth is a function of nutrition.长身体是由营养决定的
2，X is a function of Y. X是Y的函数（即X的值由Y决定）。
3，A is a function of B. A由B决定。

根据这个解释，上文最后一句话的理解应该就是铁与心脏病的关系是由红肉与心脏病的关系决定的，即红肉和心脏病有关系，所以铁才和心脏病有关系。
这是一个变态的句子，根据我们的常理，以上因果关系应当完全倒过来才说得通，所以，故意颠倒原因与结果，可能就是一个主要的攻击点。但是，如果抓住这点进行攻击，就等于我们承认了铁能够引起心脏病，从而红肉也能引起心脏病，这就把后路堵死了，很难再找到第二个攻击点了。如果不对这点进行攻击，倒是可以凑上几段，但很明显忽略掉了最主要的问题，攻击变成了隔靴搔痒。
我都怀疑ETS是不是把这道题搞错了，如果最后一句话的因果关系颠倒一下，不就很好写吗？直接攻击，1，铁不一定能引起心脏病；2，即使铁能引起心脏病，并不意味着含铁的红肉能引起心脏病。有其他原因导致心脏病，有铁的吸收问题等等。
我看了几片流行的提纲和范文，基本上都是按照对题意错误的理解写的。大家看看，有何高见！


我的提纲:
1.研究是否科学，样本是否全面可靠.
2.研究只说铁含量过高与心脏病有关联,没说是因果关系.并不能得出结论.
3.就算铁多会有心脏病,但是红肉中的铁也一样么?也许不同物质中含的铁对人体的作用是不同的.

[ 本帖最后由 金枝 于 2007-3-3 20:20 编辑 ]

金枝UID: 2279867

145 A new study collected data that shows that people who snore are more likely to gain weight than are people who do not snore. It is well known that many people who snore also stop breathing frequently during the night for a few seconds, a condition called sleep apnea. The interruption of breathing wakes the person—often so briefly that the waking goes unnoticed—and can leave the person too tired during the day to exercise. Anyone who snores, therefore, should try to eat less than the average person and to exercise more.

一项新的调查所收集的数据显示打呼噜的人比不打呼噜的人更容易长胖。我们知道很多打呼噜的人夜间也经常有数秒钟的呼吸停顿，这种现象被称为睡眠呼吸中断。这种呼吸的停顿导致本人醒来——通常十分短暂以至于不被察觉——并且会使本人在白天很累而无力锻炼。因此，所有打呼噜的人都应该比正常人少吃多锻炼。

0606G同主题分析:
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... &extra=page%3D1


论断：打鼾的人应该试着比一般人少吃点并多运动。因为一项新的研究收集数据显示打鼾的人比不打的人更容易长胖。大家都知道很多打鼾的人在夜里也会经常有几秒钟的停止呼吸，这叫睡眠窒息状态。这种呼吸的间断会使人醒过来，经常非常短而不被注意到，这会使人在白天感觉特别累而不愿运动。
•前提：打鼾的人不运动。没有证据，没有资料。有可能还运动。
•前提：打鼾的人白天觉得累。也是没有证据。不被察觉的清醒是否会影响睡眠质量。
•证据有问题：一是描述不科学，不知道是否有代表性。二是，别的原因使得长胖，而打鼾是长胖的原因。
•结论，即使打鼾会使累，也不应该少吃多运动。都累了，还苦着，身体会坏的。


GORQI :https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... ghlight=argument145
感觉needle的关于study的论述很经济也，可以用在所有关于study的文章中
提纲是不是：
1，study缺乏科学性
2， 没有理由认为吃得多跟打鼾有关系
3， 加强锻炼时没有道理的
我觉得还有一点，常识一般是胖的人容易打鼾阿，看起来作者是颠倒了这个因果关系
还有就是就算会醒也没关系，就跟做梦似的么，也许他们睡得还多呢


wkptom :https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... ghlight=argument145
提纲：
1．        少吃多锻炼不是解决由于打呼噜而变胖的方法。
2．        白天无力锻炼的原因不仅仅由于sleep spnea。
3．        不是所有打呼噜的人需要节食和锻炼。

[ 本帖最后由 金枝 于 2007-3-3 20:41 编辑 ]

金枝UID: 2279867

147 The following appeared in an editorial in a business magazine.

"Although the sales of Whirlwind video games have declined over the past two years, a recent survey of video-game players suggests that this sales trend is about to be reversed. The survey asked video-game players what features they thought were most important in a video game. According to the survey, players prefer games that provide lifelike graphics, which require the most up-to-date computers. Whirlwind has just introduced several such games with an extensive advertising campaign directed at people 10 to 25 years old, the age-group most likely to play video games. It follows, then, that the sales of Whirlwind video games are likely to increase dramatically in the next few months."


论断：WW今后几个月的销售可能会急聚上升。因为一份对电视游戏玩家的调查显示，它的销售趋势会转变。这份调查问玩家们认为游戏的什么特点最重要，他们偏向有生动动画的游戏，这种游戏需要最新的电脑技术。WW刚刚用大规模广告向10到25岁的人群推出了几种这样的游戏，这个年纪的人群最可能玩电游。
•前提：关于10到25岁最可能玩电游，没有数字，没有根据，是瞎猜的。
•WV会卖得好，虽然玩家们认为这是最重要的特点，但并不表示生动了他们就一定买。因为游戏还有其他特点，比如类型、是否刺激、主题等。如果光有技术，思想不足，也不一定卖得好。而且他没有说用的什么技术，我们无法认同是否存在判断失误。
•论据：广告针对10-25岁人群，但调查不是，这两者可能存在偏差。 •结论：尽管WV吸引人，可能经济萧条，或整个市场不好。


0706G同主题:
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... ghlight=argument147
1.Survey。题目中给出了以下信息么？A.这项调查是谁完成的，有没有权威性和可信度？B.调查是如何做的？调查者是哪一类游戏玩家，智力游戏的还是模拟实况游戏的？C.数据是如何处理？
2.调查的数据与结论无因果关系。A.虽然是重要的特性，但是买产品还会依赖于其他什么因素？B.是不是没个人都有最先进的电脑？
3.急于求成，作者的结论不一定成立。A.同期市场上的同类型产品有多少？B.W公司投放之前是不是已经有更好的同类型游戏推出，其效果如何？C.10-25岁的购买力如何？D.本来有购买力的客户会不会因为W公司相比于其他公司的更少的宣传，而不买W的产品？



0606G同主题:
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... ghlight=argument147
说实话，个人认为这道题可以说是千苍白孔的，题目中逻辑错误很多，下面提供一些重点。

1、Survey的整体问题，就是所谓的Sample Size和Selection Procedure的问题，我就不赘述了。

2、The survey asked video-game players what features they thought were most important in a video game. According to the survey, players prefer games that provide lifelike graphics, which require the most up-to-date computers. 这句话的问题在于游戏者看重游戏的画质并不表示游戏者会选择画质比较好的游戏，或许有别的游戏者看重的方面。比如游戏性，剧情等等。

3、Whirlwind has just introduced several such games with an extensive advertising campaign directed at people 10 to 25 years old, the age-group most likely to play video games. 这句话隐含的前提就是有extensive advertising campaign和买游戏的人喜欢画质好的游戏，这种游戏就会令销量上升。这两个assumption都是有问题的。影响游戏销量的因素很多，大众的经济因素，游戏销售的价格等等，并不能由上面的两个因素就说这样的游戏销量好。

4、上面的那句话另外两个个隐含的前提是，10到25岁的人群玩游戏的人多表示这些人群玩这种画质比较好的游戏的人就会多，和多人喜欢玩这种游戏就会多人买这种游戏。这两个前提也是很明显有问题的。





我的提纲:
1.10-25岁最喜欢玩游戏不等于最有能力买游戏.
2.过去两年下降的原因是什么不清楚.如果是因为别的公司有更好的游戏，那么就算开展了大力的广告推广,也不一定能提高销量.
3.倾向于那些最需要先进电脑的游戏，并不一定具备这样的电脑。如果这样的电脑很昂贵，很少人拥有，那么即使喜欢那样的游戏，买了玩不了，也还是没人会买。销量就提不上了.
4.对游戏玩家的调查是否科学，就算科学，与结论不一致.结论是有关销量,但是调查是询问玩家对他们来说游戏的最重要特征是什么。两者不具备直接的联系.

[ 本帖最后由 金枝 于 2007-3-3 21:52 编辑 ]

金枝UID: 2279867

153 The following is from an editorial in the Midvale Observer, a local newspaper.

"Ever since the 1950's, when television sets began to appear in the average home, the rate of crimes committed by teenagers in the country of Alta has steadily increased. This increase in teenage crime parallels the increase in violence shown on television. According to several national studies, even very young children who watch a great number of television shows featuring violent scenes display more violent behavior within their home environment than do children who do not watch violent shows. Furthermore, in a survey conducted by the Observer, over 90 percent of the respondents were parents who indicated that prime-time television—programs that are shown between 7 p.m. and 9 p.m.—should show less violence. Therefore, in order to lower the rate of teenage crime in Alta, television viewers should demand that television programmers reduce the amount of violence shown during prime time."


论断：为降低A的少年犯罪率，电视观众应该要求电视节目减少黄金时段里的暴力内容。因为自从电视机进入普通家庭以来，少年犯罪率就一直在上升，电视里的暴力内容也在上升。根据几个国家的研究，甚至很小的孩子看了大量电视上的暴力特定都会在家里表现出比其它孩子更暴力的行为。而且，观察者做的一份调查，90%的被访者是表示黄金时段的电视节目应该少一些暴力内容的父母。
•前提，少年犯罪率的上升是因为电视节目的暴力内容上升，是否有犯罪的少年经常看电视里的暴力。
•前提，暴力并不等于犯罪。
•论据，调查没有科学的描述。



果小冻 (小小)
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... ghlight=argument153
提纲：
1,没有证据可以说明少年犯罪是因为电视节目的暴力内容的上升。首先缺乏可靠的数据说明犯罪率有明显的提高，再次两者同时发生也不能说明之间有因果关系，是否有犯罪的少年经常看电视里的暴力呢？他们看前后的行为思想的对比
2，国际性的调查缺乏可信度，首先国际性的情况不一定在当地适用，其次在家庭环境有暴力行为并不能说明他们一定会在外面造成犯罪行为，要说明这些暴力行为的尺度。
3，关于调查，缺乏科学性的描述，这个调查的权威性值得怀疑，调查的总数，调查的代表性，被访者大多是父母，他们的意见是否可以代表大众观点。



sallyxindu (sally)
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... ghlight=argument153
提纲：
1,没有证据可以说明少年犯罪是因为电视节目的暴力内容的上升。首先缺乏可靠的数据说明犯罪率有明显的提高，感觉这点是前提，没必要去驳斥，这就好比你驳斥本来这个阿狗的题目没有意义一样。再次两者同时发生也不能说明之间有因果关系，是否有犯罪的少年经常看电视里的暴力呢？他们看前后的行为思想的对比 除了这点以外可以讨论下引起犯罪的其他因素，比如贫困，教育质量，法律漏洞等。
2，[国际的调查缺乏可信度，首先国际性的情况不一定在当地适用，其次在家庭环境有暴力行为并不能说明他们一定会在外面造成犯罪行为，要说明这些暴力行为的尺度。
对于这点，咱们讨论下我没看出来是说了家庭暴力
3，关于调查，缺乏科学性的描述，这个调查的权威性值得怀疑，调查的总数，调查的代表性，被访者大多是父母，他们的意见是否可以代表大众观点。




我的提纲:
1.全国性的调查对A地区是否也一样.具体问题应该具体分析.
2.电视就是罪魁祸首?也许是缺乏德育教育和管理.
3.crimes和violent behaviour是两回事.有暴力行为并不一定就是犯罪.
4.调查是否科学.OBSERVER的调查目的,对象都不清楚.且90的回应者是家长,家长不希望播放暴力节目只能说明他们不希望黄金时间播放暴力节目，并不说明这样能减少犯罪率.
5.就算电视与犯罪挂钩，那么只减少黄金时间的暴力节目就可以减少青少年犯罪了么?
6.犯罪增加与电视中暴力节目的增加同时,并不一定就是因果关系.

[ 本帖最后由 金枝 于 2007-3-3 22:24 编辑 ]

金枝UID: 2279867

161 In a study of reading habits of Leeville citizens conducted by the University of Leeville, most respondents said they preferred literary classics as reading material. However, a follow-up study conducted by the same researchers found that the type of book most frequently checked out of each of the public libraries in Leeville was the mystery novel. Therefore, it can be concluded that the respondents in the first study had misrepresented their reading habits.


论断：居民不是最爱看古典文学。一项由L校进行的该地区居民阅读习惯研究中，大多数被访者说他们最爱看古典文学。但是他们随后进行的研究又发现该地区每个公共图书馆里最常被借的是神话小说。
•古典文学里有很多都是神话小说。奥德赛，希望神话都是古典小说。 First at all , the mystery novels can also be literary classics. The arguer undercounted the scope of "literary classics" . in fact, all book write by writers past and made great successes in readers can be called "literary classics", there are many mystery novels such as the "Odessey" and "Greek Mysterious story" have long been considered as literary classics. Moreover, each reader has his/her own concept about "literary classics", therefore, the arguer's conclusion about they had misrepresented theri reading habits is unfounded.
•公共图书馆不是唯一的书源。可以买，可以去私人图书馆。有可能是因为公共图书馆里古典小说藏量不丰富，或是神话小说过多而造成的。人们只是顺便借来看看。
•第二次研究时间多长，有可能只是暂时现象。比如流行。


gnomi :https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... ghlight=argument161
First, the argument provides no evidence to show that the two surveys were carried out in the same group of people.
Moreover, we do not have any evidence suggesting that people who claimed themselves funs of literary classics would certainly borrow these books from public libraries.
Thirdly, the argument depends on the assumption that no mystery novel belongs to the range of literary classics, which is generally disproved.


needle:https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... ghlight=argument161
1. 样本比较差异：
   a.两个调查中，范围分别是citizen与借书人，不完全相同。
   b.借的人和读的人也不完全相同（他举例父母给孩子借书）。
   c.classic和mystery novel有交集（例如Bible）

另外：
2.study固定反驳点：采样是否随机，数量是否够大等等


Daffi:https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... ument161&page=2
1、reading habits和图书馆的CHECK OUT完全是两码事。爱看不一定爱借，可能更爱买；也可能因为爱看，借了一次就把它认真放家里研究，所以反而比不上mystery novels流通率高。

2、调查的人群不同。第一个study是没有特指，可能是较普遍的；但第二个则是针对图书馆的。常去图书馆的群体往往比较特殊，譬如多为学生、知识分子之类，特定群体的喜好与大众的喜好当然可能不同。

3、图书借出率高可能有很多原因，譬如这段时间Leeville正在举办一个mystery novel的征文，导致查阅资料者大大增多。（笑~）这与人们更喜欢literary classics一点矛盾都没有。

[ 本帖最后由 金枝 于 2007-3-4 17:30 编辑 ]

金枝UID: 2279867

170 For the past five years, consumers in California have been willing to pay twice as much for oysters from the northeastern Atlantic Coast as for Gulf Coast oysters. This trend began shortly after harmful bacteria were found in a few raw Gulf Coast oysters. But scientists have now devised a process for killing the bacteria. Once consumers are made aware of the increased safety of Gulf Coast oysters, they are likely to be willing to pay as much for Gulf Coast as for northeastern Atlantic Coast oysters, and greater profits for Gulf Coast oyster producers will follow.

论断：公众知道有杀死细菌的方法，GC地区的牡蛎生产者就会有更高的利润。因为顾客会觉得安全而愿付与东北牡蛎一样的价格买CG的牡蛎。过去五年加州的消费者愿意付比GC高一倍的钱去买东北牡蛎，这个趋势是从GC牡蛎里发现有害细菌开始的。
•顾客是否会用与现在东北牡蛎一样的价格买GC的。发现GC有细菌使得东北牡蛎价格上涨，没有细菌东北牡蛎价格将来有可能会下降，GC牡蛎价格可能还是这样，尽管可能有不被保证有比目前上升。
•可以杀死细菌也不一定买GC，可能味道，保鲜等等，在发现细菌前就不买它了。
•有人用高于现在的价格买，也不带来赢利。杀菌的花销。 •最后最关键的一点是，reputation is easy to destroy but hard to regain. Even aware of the recent devise to kill the bacteria, consumers very probobaly still afraid of this problem. If they withold their credence to such device, they would still not buy GC oyster. It will maybe a long time and need astrenuous work to conciliate their fear.



我的提纲:
1.安全性提高不一定就爱买，价格影响，包装......
2.只说有这么一个工艺能杀灭，但是没说效果如何; 何况这个工艺的花费如何也不知道，也许花费太昂贵以至于会无利可图.
3.这个工艺会不会杀灭细菌的同时把有益成分也消灭了.
4.利润涉及到的因素很多，比如成本，比如销量.即使消费者发现GC的安全心提高而愿意付出和AC同样的价钱来购买，也不一定就能带来更大的利润.

[ 本帖最后由 金枝 于 2007-3-4 17:37 编辑 ]

金枝UID: 2279867

177 The following is a letter that recently appeared in the Oak City Gazette, a local newspaper.

"Membership in Oak City's Civic Club—a club whose primary objective is to discuss local issues—should continue to be restricted to people who live in Oak City. People who work in Oak City but who live elsewhere cannot truly understand the business and politics of the city. It is important to restrict membership to city residents because only residents pay city taxes and therefore only residents understand how the money could best be used to improve the city. At any rate, restricting membership in this way is unlikely to disappoint many of the nonresidents employed in Oak City, since neighboring Elm City's Civic Club has always had an open membership policy, and only twenty-five nonresidents have joined Elm City's Club in the last ten years."



论断：O城的市民俱乐部应该继续只让住在O城的居民参加。因为只有居民付城市税，所以他们知道钱要怎么花才最好地促进这个城市，而在O城工作但住别地儿的人不可能真正懂得这个城市的商业和政策。另外限制也不会让非本城居民的员工失望，因为隔壁E城不限制，但是过去十年里只有25个非居民会员参加。
•前提，不住在本城就不懂得本城。不交税就关心本城，没有证据。另外由于这些人有不同城市的经历，应该好好利用。不然只局限于本地，可能眼界狭窄。
•不会让非本地员工失望，论据不足信。E城可能是小城，没多少外地人关心和工作，但O可能经济要发展一些，吸引了很多外地人。进行讨论就是一个很好的表现。



我的提纲:
1.不能因为外地人少就把他们排除在外,也许他们贡献很大.不能武断的说他们不理解本城市的政治和经济.
2.E城与O城情况不同不能一概而论.而且E城的数据是说过去的10年，并没有说最近。而且25个人虽然少，但是不知道总数，也许就只有25个人，那么就不能说外地人参与的少了.
3.不能说不会使O城工作的外地人失望，没有调查过不能轻易下结论.
4.成员资格继续限制在本城居住的人是否可行。也许本市居住的人越发的少了.也许本市的人根本都不愿意参与讨论本地事务.

[ 本帖最后由 金枝 于 2007-3-4 17:56 编辑 ]

金枝UID: 2279867

179 The following is a memorandum written by the director of personnel to the president of the Cedar Corporation.

"It would be a mistake to rehire the Good-Taste Company to supply the food in our employee cafeteria next year. It is the second most expensive caterer in the city. In addition, its prices have risen in each of the last three years, and it refuses to provide meals for people on special diets. Just last month three employees complained to me that they no longer eat in the cafeteria because they find the experience 'unbearable.' Our company should instead hire Discount Foods. Discount is a family-owned local company and it offers a varied menu of fish and poultry. I recently tasted a sample lunch at one of the many companies that Discount serves and it was delicious—an indication that hiring Discount will lead to improved employee satisfaction."


论断：公司应该用D公司，重新雇用G是个错误。因为G是这个城市第二贵的，他们的价格过去三年里一直在涨，而且不给饮食有特殊要求的供餐。上个月就有三个员工向我抱怨他们不再在食堂吃饭了，因为经历不可忍受。雇用D，D是一个当地家庭公司，它的菜单有各种各样的鱼和猪肉。我最近在一个他们服务的公司吃了个品尝午餐，味道很不错——这是一个用他们会提高员工满意程度的标志。
•前提G不好，three employee and just last month does not make sense. Maybe for their insatiable contentment or just happenchances. Perhaps a survey over this topics should be carried before any conclusion arrived.
•D好，证据不够。首先，the arguer's gustation, however just once, cannot represent that of the whole compnay's. It is very possible that the majority of employees reject the food served by D. 其次，"Delicious" does not equal nutrition, which is of more importance in judging the food service.
•价格问题，G说了干嘛不提D的，它可能也挺贵的。而且既然是家小公司，hygiene and amout quality is problematic.


我的提纲:
1.只说GT是第二贵的餐饮服务商,并没说D如何.也许D是本市最贵的餐饮服务商.
2.提供鱼类和禽类多种菜单,并不表示D就提供特殊的餐饮服务，也许他也拒绝为有特殊饮食服务的人提供服务.
3.只有三名员工提出投诉,是否有代表性。而且他们因为什么.是因为食品的质量和味道，还是因为员工餐厅的设施问题?如果是员工餐厅的设施问题，那也许跟GT都没关系.
4.雇佣D将会带来更高的员工满意度.员工满意度包含很多方面。这样说太武断了.比如薪酬福利,工作环境.

[ 本帖最后由 金枝 于 2007-3-4 18:01 编辑 ]

金枝UID: 2279867

196 Sadly, widespread negative images of businesspeople have been created in large part by television. Consider the fact that, although they make up a mere 10 percent of the characters in dramatic roles on television, businesspeople are responsible for about one-fifth of all the crime on television shows. In fact, in a recent survey of television producers, only 35 percent of the television roles for businesspeople were viewed as positive ones.


论断：商人的负面印象主要是电视造成的。因为尽管电视剧里有只有10%的角色是商人，但是电视里的罪犯大约五分之一是商人。事实上，最近的一份对电视制作人的调查中，只有35%的电视商人角色被看成是有积极意义的。
•没有观众的资料，他们没说自己对于商人的负面印象是从电视上来的。事实上还有很多的途径。
•电视里的商人也不都是负面的。首先罪犯问题，五分一是商人，那么罪犯的比例是多少？如果只有1%的角色是罪犯，那么只有千分二的角色是商人罪犯，那么也就是99%的商人角色都不是罪犯。另外，关于制作人的调查，首先描述不科学，不知是否准确，其次35%是积极的，并不代表剩下的65%就是负面的。


Dendis
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=208083
这两天在研究Argument难题，发现Argument196的第一个论据好像真的很有说服力，基本很难在理论上反驳。不知道是我的逻辑背叛了思维，还是混乱冲昏了头脑……大家看过后可以各抒己见，也帮助我解答心中困惑，不甚感激。
Argument196
Sadly, widespread negative images of businesspeople have been created in large part by television. Consider the fact that, although they make up a mere 10 percent of the characters in dramatic roles on television, businesspeople are responsible for about one-fifth of all the crime on television shows. In fact, in a recent survey of television producers, only 35 percent of the television roles for businesspeople were viewed as positive ones.

论据1：Consider the fact that, although they make up a mere 10 percent of the characters in dramatic roles on television, businesspeople are responsible for about one-fifth of all the crime on television shows. (因为尽管电视剧里有只有10%的角色是商人，但是电视里的罪犯大约五分之一是商人。)

我发现这一论据似乎可以证明商人角色在电视角色中涉及罪犯时的确不太正常。
所有商人人数＝10％×所有角色人数
所有角色人数＝非罪犯人数＋罪犯人数
等量代换：所有商人人数＝10％非罪犯＋10％罪犯（理论）
所有商人人数＝X%非罪犯＋20％罪犯（实际）
理论上商人罪犯在罪犯中只应占10％，非罪犯商人也占10％
实际上商人罪犯占罪犯比例为20％，高于理论分析得出的10％，自然非罪犯商人相应降低，肯定少于10％。简言之罪犯商人增加，非罪犯商人减少。
假如1000个人中有100个罪犯，商人占总人数10％，那么他在罪犯总人数中也只应占10％，即只应该有10个商人罪犯，但实际商人罪犯占据罪犯人数的20％，即有20个罪犯，显然这是不正常的将多余的罪犯角色分配给商人，对商人形象产生不良影响。
Ps：上述论证过程不需要作任何假定都可成立。

猴哥的分析是这样的：如果所有角色中只有1%的人是罪犯，那么只有千分二的角色是商人罪犯，那么也就是98%的商人角色都不是罪犯。
同样假定总人数1000，所有角色中只有1%的人是罪犯，即只有10个罪犯。1000人中100个商人，里面包括有2个罪犯商人和98个非罪犯商人。因为非罪犯商人远远多于罪犯商人，所以这两个数据并不影响商人形象。猴哥的立足点是因为罪犯商人占商人的比例很低，所以不具代表性，可以不足为奇，也不会影响商人的整体形象。但他的推论是在假定罪犯人数占所有角色人数比例很小的情况下(即假定的1％)才得到的。
通过一定的比例关系我们其实可以得出这样的结论：罪犯商人/商人=2×罪犯/所有角色.
极端一点假设戏中所有角色中一半都是罪犯，即罪犯/所有角色.＝50％，那么所有的商人都将成为罪犯商人，无一幸免。商人角色大都是非罪犯形象的结论也不攻自破。
Ps：猴哥的论证需要对罪犯/所有角色作一很小值的规定，具有局限性。

综上所述，从论据1我们的确可以发现商人罪犯比例高于正常值，商人形象也一定程度受到影响。感觉自己仿佛身处Ets的无间道中，Argument十面埋伏啊……



lakeqian
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... p;extra=&page=2
似乎还有点可批的：
1两次调查都没提到样本大小，选取方式。如果正好全选上了商人犯罪类题材的电影，那么这个调查就没意义了。
2 不完全比较。如果其他影片中出现过的其他职业是反派比例更高呢？

[ 本帖最后由 金枝 于 2007-3-4 18:44 编辑 ]

金枝UID: 2279867

197 The following appeared as part of a recommendation made by a faculty member to the president of a large university.

"Never once in our 150-year history as a university have we clarified our objectives. How, then, can we hope to adapt as an institution to the new challenges facing higher education. As a first step in this evolutionary process, therefore, we should send out questionnaires asking faculty members why they teach, asking students what they want from this university, and asking former students what they gained from their own education here. When the replies come in, we can tabulate them and formulate an official statement of our educational mission. This will surely result in improved programs at our university."

论断：我们应该发送问题调查，因为这项调查肯定能提高我们学校的课程。因为我们150年来都不知道自己的目标是什么。
•有了目标就能提高水平。
•发了调查就能确定下目标。
•学生、老师和校友的目标合适。



coldautumn
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... ghlight=argument197
1.一个学校怎么可能没有目标,校训不是最直接的目标吗?
2.这样的问卷调查之后就能够确定任务,太简单了吧.
3.我觉得这种调查是有价值的.没必要驳死.


iostream
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... ghlight=argument197
1.The the survey lacks credibility.
比如问卷的形式，是选择还是自答，这有可能对调查结果产生影响。
2.The arguer's conclusion relies on a unwarranted assumption that an official statement of educational mission will lead to  the improved programs at the university.
勉强找了两个，有点牵强，大家一起讨论吧。



shuixiu
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... ghlight=argument197
是不是可以这样：
1. 150年以来大学发展的不好吗？即使不好，是因为没有校训的原因吗？况且大学应该是个性化培养，没有必要一刀切。
2.即使要有校训，用调查问卷的方法恐怕存在问题：作者没有具体说怎么调查，是提供选择项还是每个人给出自己的想法？前者会存在答案有限，引导被调查者的倾向，后者则会重说纷纭，难以定夺。另外，样本的问题：有多大样本，老师还是学生，还是以前的校友为主？有很大可能他们的看法本身就会存在很大差异。作者应该好好考虑方法和样本。
3.没有因果关系表明有校训就可以提高program。

第一次看到这个题目，想法不是很成熟，大家讨论一下吧


cencen
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... ghlight=argument197
1 ,the assumption that the clarified objection will improve programs.(还可以说下确定明确目标是不是有必要既然150都没有明确目标能生存)
2  faculty member : teach for money
     students: gain jobs
      alumina:  love or something irrelated to the education
      Then,the questionaire is useless for creating claried objectives(还可以说下调查的有效性)
3,It is easy to collect questionnaires but hard to formulate an union statemrnte and define the mission fo the university.



yogurt4
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... 3Ddigest&page=8
楼上的分析的很8错,我也来补充下
1,题目:never once in our 150-year history as a universityhave we clarified our objectives
but every department may have its definite goal.
2 Why  we should clear our objectives?
To adapt to the new challenges facing......
But what are the challenges? Maybe this university is as good as MIT, so its problem may be too many students applying it every year.In short, the word "challenge" is  vague , emotional, and meaningless.



tangjihede
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... 3Ddigest&page=8
1. fails to prove that objectives are really indispensable.
2. significance of questionnaires. parents'and employers opinions might also be counted,
3.an official statment will necessarily result in improved programs?
4.this activity might lead to undesirable influence. disturb teachers and studetns....

[ 本帖最后由 金枝 于 2007-3-4 19:20 编辑 ]

金枝UID: 2279867

198 There is a general idea that a translation always fails to preserve some of the qualities that distinguish the original work—i.e., that 'something always gets lost in translation.' Writers, critics, and the general reading public unthinkingly accept this cliché. But this belief is unwarranted: translators are sometimes distinguished authors themselves, and some authors may even translate their own works. As the translator pointed out in the preface to an English version of Dante's works, the violin and the piano make different sounds, but they can play what is recognizably the same piece of music.   

论断：认为翻译失去原作精华的观念是没有根据的。因为翻译家有时本身就是出色的作家，而一些作家也会翻译自己的作品。D的英文版的翻译者在前言里说，小提琴和钢琴有不同的声音，但它们能演奏感觉一样的音乐作品。这些例子都有问题。
•翻译家本身是出色的作家。是作家，但不能表示它能很好地理解原著里的一些细微之处。这是生活环境、观念、文化所造成的。
•作家自己翻译。用一个自己不是很熟悉的语言，不一定能把内心中的东西表达出来。没有资料表示这些作家对于自己的翻译很满意。
•小提琴和钢琴的类比不合适。他们照着同一个乐谱演奏，而翻译却是在两种文字中转换。而且，小提琴和钢琴演奏出来的韵味肯定不一样。

[ 本帖最后由 金枝 于 2007-3-4 19:17 编辑 ]

金枝UID: 2279867

200 Statistics collected from dentists indicate that three times more men than women faint while visiting the dentist. This evidence suggests that men are more likely to be distressed about having dental work done than women are. Thus, dentists who advertise to attract patients should target the male consumer and emphasize both the effectiveness of their anesthetic techniques and the sensitivity of their staff to nervous or suffering patients

论断：打广告吸引病人的牙医应该把目标放在男顾客身上，并强调他们麻醉技术的效果以及员工对病人紧张或痛苦的敏感。因为从牙医那儿收集的数据表明，看牙医晕的男人比女人多三倍，这显示男人比女人接受牙治疗时更紧张。
•前提，男人比女人晕得多。男女病人的各自总数没有提，有可能男人牙病的多。而且也没有提病症，有可能男人的牙问题比女人的严重。
•男人比女人看牙医容易紧张。女人可能也紧张，但不是晕，还有其它的表现，比如说心里，还有的干脆不去。
•结论，打广告：没人说医生敏感就不紧张，得技术好。不关女病人，万一不看牙医的女人多呢。



libby
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... ghlight=argument200
In the first place, the conclusion is based on the assumption that the faint of patients is caused by being afraid of having dental work.
In the second place, the arguer declares that the statistics collected from dentists is doubtful because the statistics may be not reliable, or the representation is insufficient; the arguer provides no proof which can indicate the statistics is accurate and can represent the true conditions. Based on such inaccurate survey, the conclusion is refutable
the author suggests they should advertise their anesthetic techniques and their sensitivity, but he or she ignores a most important fact that the patients come to treat their teeth so they firstly consider the affectivity of the treatment but not other matters.

[ 本帖最后由 金枝 于 2007-3-4 19:29 编辑 ]

金枝UID: 2279867

237 The following appeared as part of an article in a local Beauville newspaper.

"According to a government report, last year the city of Dillton reduced its corporate tax rate by 15 percent; at the same time, it began offering relocation grants and favorable rates on city utilities to any company that would relocate to Dillton. Within 18 months, two manufacturing companies moved to Dillton, where they employ a total of 300 people. Therefore, the fastest way for Beauville to stimulate economic development and hence reduce unemployment is to provide tax incentives and other financial inducements that encourage private companies to relocate here."

论断：B刺激经济发展降低失业率的最快方法是提供税收刺激和其它财政刺激鼓励私人企业再创业。因为D城去年把企业税降了15%，同时他们开始向所有到D来创业的企业提供资金和优惠的城市设备使用价格。18个月里，两家制造企业搬去了D，它们一共雇了300个人。 论断都从D城例子得来。
•两城情况不一样，地理位不同、发展水平不同、居民不同等等等。D城以前的税率不明，有可能降完了还比B高。
•两家公司不一定是因为低税来D的，有可能这里的潜在市场被它们看重，有可能其它自己的原因。
•D城的经济发展和失业问题解决得怎么样不知道，300个人的就业少了点吧。而且搞不好这三百人以前都是有工作的。
•结论：首先D城例子里没说两家公司是私人企业，私人企业就算有刺激不一定能有能力再创业。其次，最快的方法，你就说了这一个呢。




tangjihede
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... 3Ddigest&page=8
1.fails to prove that those financials inducements of D are really successful. there might be other reasons accouting for the relocation of two companies.
2.even granted...the arguer still fails to show that D solves the unemployment problem well. 300 people employed by those two comanies might come from other cities. Even they are native employees, perhaps this number could be neglectable compared with huge number of unemployment.
3.fallacy of false analogy.
4"private company"?



aerozxy
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... ghlight=argument237
1> false analogy
a. 两个城市的情况不同，D可能本来税就很高，而且原来没有提供
    比较优惠的政策；而B可能税已经很低了，并且一直有优惠政策。
b. 其他硬件设施也不一样，措施是否在B有效无法预测。
2〉没有证据表明D从中受益
a 只有两个公司搬过来不能表明它的经济增长了，没有具体数据。
b 18个月时间太短，不能表明还有其他的公司愿意投资
c 那300个人是雇佣的本地人吗，如果不是，怎么算解决了就业问题，
   而且即使是本地的，300人也显得太少。
3〉文中没有提到D的两家公司是private，所以能否吸引私有公司不知道。

[ 本帖最后由 金枝 于 2007-3-4 20:10 编辑 ]