我發現有很多人對有結論句題型所謂的the argument定義上有困難，這邊我稍微闡述一下，以下利用最近某位同學發的問題來解答。
112. (32826-!-item-!-188;#058&006832) (GWD 8-Q38)
Unless tiger hunting decreases, tigers will soon be extinct in the wild. The countries in which the tigers' habitats are located are currently debating joint legislation that would ban tiger hunting. Thus, if these countries can successfully enforce this legislation, the survival of tigers in the wild will be ensured.
The reasoning in the argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that the argument
A. assumes without sufficient warrant that a ban on tiger hunting could be successfully enforced
E. takes the removal of an impediment to the tigers' survival as a guarantee of their survival(正解)
這一題我比較困惑的是A選項。
題目說成功執行立法就可以保證老虎的生存。
A選項說，題目的argument無法充分保證禁令可以成功的執行。
=>成功執行立法不代表成功執行禁令
A感覺也削弱了argument。
雖然E選項也很對，可是我不太能排除A選項
不曉得我的看法是否有誤?謝謝。
My answer
其實大家抓結論句通常會抓:Thus, if these countries can successfully enforce this legislation, the survival of tigers in the wild will be ensured.
但是這整句話是the argument嗎? 我認為以上這句話中藍色的才是the argument，紅色部分是"假設"，基本上這種假設和premise一樣，都是不能動的事實或討論背景。
the argument應該是指結論句下的一個"判定"，也就是 the survival of tigers in the wild will be ensured.，these countries can successfully enforce this legislation已經是假設的背景前提，不能再去否定它，只能否定"判定"。
A選項其實主要就是在測試考生在思考一個問題時能否對fact及conclusion做個區分，很明顯的若無法區分的人在考邏輯時會吃大虧，因為很明顯的這個是GMAC常設計的一個錯誤答案模式，我再舉另外一題給各位看:
GWD-11-Q38:
Unprecedented industrial growth in the country of Remo has created serious environmental problems because factories there lack adequate pollution-control systems. Remo is developing a clean growth plan that includes environmental regulations that will require the installation of such systems. Since no companies in Remo currently produce pollution-control systems, the plan, if implemented, will create significant opportunities for foreign exporters to market pollution-control systems.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?
A. The clean growth plan will provide tax incentives for local businesses to develop and manufacture pollution-control devices.
C. Industrial lobbyists sponsored by local businesses in Remo are trying to prevent the implementation of the government regulations.
注意到了嗎? 這題the argument是指the plan will create significant opportunities for foreign exporters to market pollution-control systems，但討論前提是plan已經執行了，所以C選項不對，有沒有發現C選項和上一題的A選項出題的概念一致?
112. (32826-!-item-!-188;#058&006832) (GWD 8-Q38)
Unless tiger hunting decreases, tigers will soon be extinct in the wild. The countries in which the tigers' habitats are located are currently debating joint legislation that would ban tiger hunting. Thus, if these countries can successfully enforce this legislation, the survival of tigers in the wild will be ensured.
The reasoning in the argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that the argument
A. assumes without sufficient warrant that a ban on tiger hunting could be successfully enforced
E. takes the removal of an impediment to the tigers' survival as a guarantee of their survival(正解)
這一題我比較困惑的是A選項。
題目說成功執行立法就可以保證老虎的生存。
A選項說，題目的argument無法充分保證禁令可以成功的執行。
=>成功執行立法不代表成功執行禁令
A感覺也削弱了argument。
雖然E選項也很對，可是我不太能排除A選項
不曉得我的看法是否有誤?謝謝。
My answer
其實大家抓結論句通常會抓:Thus, if these countries can successfully enforce this legislation, the survival of tigers in the wild will be ensured.
但是這整句話是the argument嗎? 我認為以上這句話中藍色的才是the argument，紅色部分是"假設"，基本上這種假設和premise一樣，都是不能動的事實或討論背景。
the argument應該是指結論句下的一個"判定"，也就是 the survival of tigers in the wild will be ensured.，these countries can successfully enforce this legislation已經是假設的背景前提，不能再去否定它，只能否定"判定"。
A選項其實主要就是在測試考生在思考一個問題時能否對fact及conclusion做個區分，很明顯的若無法區分的人在考邏輯時會吃大虧，因為很明顯的這個是GMAC常設計的一個錯誤答案模式，我再舉另外一題給各位看:
GWD-11-Q38:
Unprecedented industrial growth in the country of Remo has created serious environmental problems because factories there lack adequate pollution-control systems. Remo is developing a clean growth plan that includes environmental regulations that will require the installation of such systems. Since no companies in Remo currently produce pollution-control systems, the plan, if implemented, will create significant opportunities for foreign exporters to market pollution-control systems.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?
A. The clean growth plan will provide tax incentives for local businesses to develop and manufacture pollution-control devices.
C. Industrial lobbyists sponsored by local businesses in Remo are trying to prevent the implementation of the government regulations.
注意到了嗎? 這題the argument是指the plan will create significant opportunities for foreign exporters to market pollution-control systems，但討論前提是plan已經執行了，所以C選項不對，有沒有發現C選項和上一題的A選項出題的概念一致?
阿拔葛格 於 2009-10-19 15:19:06 回應
精彩!!
我想這就是為什麼兔大上課會說要分清楚事實前提、假設、以及結論。
premise是不能動的東西，我們要針對的只有結論句，
所以兔大才會一直說要針對結論句去思考，才不會被前提或假設給欺騙^^
我想這就是為什麼兔大上課會說要分清楚事實前提、假設、以及結論。
premise是不能動的東西，我們要針對的只有結論句，
所以兔大才會一直說要針對結論句去思考，才不會被前提或假設給欺騙^^
