GWD-9-30

[skyyang]

GWD-9-Q30:
Criminologist:
Some legislators advocate mandating a sentence of life in prison for anyone who, having twice served sentences for serious crimes, is subsequently convicted of a third serious crime.
These legislators argue that such a policy would reduce crime dramatically, since it would take people with a proven tendency to commit crimes off the streets permanently.
What this reasoning overlooks, however, is that people old enough to have served two prison sentences for serious crimes rarely commit more than one subsequent crime.
Filling our prisons with such individuals would have exactly the opposite of the desired effect, since it would limit our ability to incarcerate younger criminals, who commit a far greater proportion of serious crimes.
In the argument as a whole, the two boldfaced portions play which of the following roles?

這是bold face
請問一下紅字部分的意思...因為霧煞煞...謝謝!

~Edited by zuckzhc
以下為選項,方便大家討論
A. The first is a conclusion that the argument as a whole seeks to refute; the second is a claim that has been advanced in support of that conclusion.

B. The first is a conclusion that the argument as a whole seeks to refute; the second is the main conclusion of the argument.

C. The first is the main conclusion of the argument; the second is an objection that has been raised against that conclusion.

D. The first is the main conclusion of the argument; the second is a prediction made on the basis of that conclusion.

E. The first is a generalization about the likely effect of a policy under consideration in the argument; the second points out a group of exceptional cases to which that generalization does not apply.

Answer : B

[liwuu]

紅色部分為將such individuals(即上面所述的犯人類型)關到監獄裡,反而會收到與預期相反的效果,後面since it would...說明為什麼會都到反效果之原因!!

[alvin]

不好意思...可以請哪一位大大幫幫忙解釋一下文章大致上的意思，
小弟實在是看的霧茫茫 >"< 感恩!

[briandragon]

我也看不大懂

[liwuu]

第一句話是說立法者建議針對過往有兩次嚴重判刑紀錄的人,如果再犯第三次則判處無期徒刑...
第二句話是立法者認為這樣一來,可以大幅減低犯罪
---------------------------------------------
第三句話開始反駁立法者意見,指出上述推論忽略一個人如果已經坐了兩次嚴重判刑紀錄的牢獄,已經都老到很少會再犯第三次案了
第四句話指出還會造成反效果,即減低囚禁犯嚴重刑責較高比例的較年輕罪犯(因為牢房數有限固定)

[clio]

這題我選了C
有人可以解釋一下B與C嗎
如果依照B的解釋來說
這樣不就變成了兩各conclusion???
可是一個題目不是應該只能有一個conclusion嗎
可以指證我的思路哪裡不對了

[維尼]

這題我選了C
有人可以解釋一下B與C嗎
如果依照B的解釋來說
這樣不就變成了兩各conclusion???
可是一個題目不是應該只能有一個conclusion嗎
可以指證我的思路哪裡不對了

每一個推論都可以有一個結論
在本題裡面
一個是作者不同意想要駁斥的結論
一個是作者認同的結論

[FionaV]

有人可以解釋E的意思嗎?
因為看不懂 所以所以我做題時就直接刪掉

[stilalala]

有人可以解釋E的意思嗎?
因為看不懂 所以所以我做題時就直接刪掉

從cd上看來的翻譯
感覺不是很容易翻第一句
參考看看,應該大致上可以體會

E的翻译是第一句话是一个关于次政策在这种情况下可能产生的影响的一个概括;第二句说是一个第一句的概括并不能够应用的一个特殊的例子

[ktc]

Filling our prisons with such individuals would have exactly the opposite of the desired effect, since it would limit our ability to incarcerate younger criminals, who commit a far greater proportion of serious crimes.
請問可以幫我解釋一下這句話嗎？

為何得到與預期不同的效果，是因為年輕人有更高比例的犯罪呢？

太弱了看不懂

[stilalala]

Filling our prisons with such individuals would have exactly the opposite of the desired effect, since it would limit our ability to incarcerate younger criminals, who commit a far greater proportion of serious crimes.
請問可以幫我解釋一下這句話嗎？

為何得到與預期不同的效果，是因為年輕人有更高比例的犯罪呢？

太弱了看不懂

簡單的說就是,如果我們的監獄裡面全都關滿了這些屢犯的罪犯(都已經老到不能在去犯什麼嚴重的罪了),這樣做會造成反效果,因為監獄就沒有空間關年輕一點的罪犯了(這類的人通常佔犯嚴重罪的比例大)

[Jacklin]

請問一下，(c)錯的原因是不是因為第二句話:the second is an objection that has been raised against that conclusion.
是否因為用來against 一個conclusion應該是要用具體的事實例子或理由，而不是另一個conclusion，而第二個boldface:"Filling our prisons...."明顯是個conclusion，所以排除這個選項；但若boldface的部份是"it would limit our ability to incarcerate younger criminals, who commit a far greater proportion of serious crimes."這句話，那(c)應該就是個正確答案了，是嗎？
麻煩大家指正一下我的觀念，謝謝！

[nexxt0722]

C的前半部:The first is the main conclusion of the argument

因為那是立法人員的結論,並不是這整個argument的結論(犯罪學家的結論),
基本上,整個argument是要反駁立法人員的結論(如同B的前半部所言)


C的後半部,個人同意你的說法

Filling our prisons with such individuals would have exactly the opposite of the desired effect-->犯罪學家的結論

since it would limit our ability to incarcerate younger criminals, who commit a far greater proportion of serious crimes-->精確地說,就是用來支持犯罪學家結論的理由說明,反過來說,也就是用來反駁立法人員結論的理由說明