[問題]GWD25-3

[ergh]

Mel: The official salary for judges has always been too low to attract the best Candidates to the job. The legislature’s move to raise the salary has done nothing to improve the situation, because it was coupled with a ban on receiving money for lectures and teaching engagements.
Pat: No, the raise in salary really does improve the situation. Since very few
judges teach or give lectures, the ban will have little or no negative
effect.
Pat’s response to Mel is inadequate in that it
A.attempts to assess how a certain change will affect potential members
of a group by providing evidence about its effect on the current members.
B.mistakenly takes the cause of a certain change to be an effect of that change
C.attempts to argue that a certain change will have a positive effect merely
by pointing to the absence of negative effects
D.simply denies Mel’s claim without putting forward any evidence in support
of that denial
E.assumes that changes that benefit the most able members of a group
necessarily benefit all members of that group.

參考答案為A

Mel:提升薪水無用，因為禁止接受來自教書的金錢
Pat:反駁無效之論，因為很少的人教書，所以禁令並不會有影響。

我認為答案應該為b吧
Pat將Mel的說法倒果為因了～～

還請大大協助一下～～謝謝～～

[fsab00037748]

以下是非大大的小理解:

對前提理解和ergh相同
Mel: 提高薪水沒有用的, 因為他同時禁止去教書獲取收入
Pat: 提高薪水(即使bundle了禁止教書收入)的方法是有用的, 因為很少人在教書.

但我不認為答案為B ,
因為選項B的意思是Pat認為: 薪水多寡和教不教書有因果關係 ;
但題目中Pat的反駁並非針對 薪水多寡v.s教不教書



A選項有點繞, 但比較可能些, 如果我們把時態也翻譯進去的話,他的意思應該如下:

Mel:薪水一直都很低,沒辦法吸引到最好的人才; 已立的提升薪資法案也沒用,
因為它不准兼差教書獲取收入。
Pat:No, 那個法案有用的, 因為要徵的人很少會去教書,
所以那個禁令將不會有什麼影響.



嗯嗯嗯....不過我最喜歡的答案是C啦
仔細看看Pat的話, “這法案有用的, 因為很少人在教書啊 ”

他的確是“ 認為這個提高薪資法案只有好處(attempts to argue that a certain change will have a positive effect merely ) ，
by 壞的影響不存在的(by pointing to the absence of negative effects ) ”


呵呵, open discuss 囉^^

[bonus]

關鍵是說在招新人的時候，pay raise又加了ban lecture/teach的收入
而第二個人只是講現在在任的法官沒幾個人teach/lecture
這裡面缺少的是對將來要招的新人的判斷

[foric0822]

贊同上面所說的
M所講的重點是針對無法招募到優秀的人，即是改善薪資也不行，因為有針對教書及演講的限制
而P回答卻針對此限制所影響的範圍，實際上是沒回答到M的重點（也就是招募優秀人才）
所以答案A中的所說的就是用現在的情況（current member)，推論到未來(potential member)

[dibert8]

如果 (E) 不選,應該從什麼角度去思考呢?

Since very few judges teach or give lectures, the ban will have little or no negative effect. 直述句陳述即將到來的事實用未來式(副詞子句以現在代未來);很少法官教書,應該涵蓋古今及未來吧!
(A) 會不會是陷阱呢? (題目沒有暗示未來的法官如何,會不會過度推論呢?以現在/事實的情況來反駁,不合理嗎?)

[willyyang]

如果 (E) 不選,應該從什麼角度去思考呢?

Since very few judges teach or give lectures, the ban will have little or no negative effect. 直述句陳述即將到來的事實用未來式(副詞子句以現在代未來);很少法官教書,應該涵蓋古今及未來吧!
(A) 會不會是陷阱呢? (題目沒有暗示未來的法官如何,會不會過度推論呢?以現在/事實的情況來反駁,不合理嗎?)

可是題目也沒有講 比較常有lecture和teaching的人= the most able members

所以 E也是有一點奇怪

[王志元]

Mel: 提高薪水吸引最好的人才是沒有用的, 因為他同時禁止去教書獲取收入
Pat: 提高薪水(即使bundle了禁止教書收入)的方法是有用的, 因為很少人在教書.

PAT犯了以偏概全的毛病：
很少人教書，不表示所有人都不教書
假如最好的人才都在教書呢？

所以選E
E的意思是
PAT的回應不充分，因為他假設
"對部分人有利（不教書的人）的改變（提高薪水）是對所有人（教書+不教書）有利"

[crazykai]

練習時就在(A)(C)間猶疑不定，最後還是選了(C)...orz||

請問大家(C)是錯在太過於武斷了嗎?

我陷入死胡同了 >"<

[a-jan]

練習時就在(A)(C)間猶疑不定，最後還是選了(C)...orz||

請問大家(C)是錯在太過於武斷了嗎?

我陷入死胡同了 >"<

C.attempts to argue that a certain change will have a positive effect {merely by pointing to the absence of negative effects} 括弧內的是超過範圍了; absence 不足、缺乏之意

因為Pat說：……………， the ban will have little or {no negative } effect.

[ginachi]

我覺得是B耶，大家參考看看!!
Mel: The official salary for judges has always been too low to attract the best Candidates to the job. The legislature’s move to raise the salary has done nothing to improve the situation, because it was coupled with a ban on receiving money for lectures and teaching engagements.
意思是給法官加薪沒辦法吸引應徵者!!因為有(過去式)ban限制不能教書和演講。

Pat: No, the raise in salary really does improve the situation. Since very few judges teach or give lectures, the ban will have little or no negative effect.
加薪是有用的，因為很少法官教書和演講，所以(未來式)ban的影響很會很小。

Pat’s response to Mel is inadequate in that it

A.attempts to assess how a certain change will affect potential members of a group by providing evidence about its effect on the current members. 以現在的證據來推論未來的影響
B.mistakenly takes the cause of a certain change to be an effect of that change 倒果為因
C.attempts to argue that a certain change will have a positive effect merely by pointing to the absence of negative effects
優點就是沒有缺點
D.simply denies Mel’s claim without putting forward any evidence in support of that denial 證據不足
E.assumes that changes that benefit the most able members of a group necessarily benefit all members of that group. 大部份的人就代表全部的人

M:因為ban的關係，所以現在教書和演講的人少(雖然M沒有明說，可M說沒辦法吸引應徵者，應該有這意思吧)。
P:現在教書和演講的人少，所以ban對未來沒有影響。