[問題]大全TEST B ,2

[shena]

2. In the years since the city of London imposed strict air-pollution regulations on local industry, the number of bird species seen in and around London has increased dramatically. Similar air-pollution rules should be imposed in other major cities.
Each of the following is an assumption made in the argument above EXCEPT:
(A) In most major cities, air-pollution problems are caused almost entirely by local industry.
(B) Air-pollution regulations on industry have a significant impact on the quality of the air.
(C) The air-pollution problems of other major cities are basically similar to those once suffered by London.
(D) An increase in the number of bird species in and around a city is desirable.
(E) The increased sightings of bird species in and around London reflect an actual increase in the number of species in the area.

Ans:(A)

請問為何(A)不是假設之ㄧ呢?本文第ㄧ句不是已說明 regulation是針對local industry嗎?

[agk99]

這題不好選

但坦白說，A確實是最差的
我是排除法選的
A最不好的地方，就是A只是restate the argument, not the assumption.

[游客]

這題不好選

但坦白說，A確實是最差的
我是排除法選的
A最不好的地方，就是A只是restate the argument, not the assumption.

As AGK said, we should choose bad one.

[Pudding]

(A) In most major cities, air-pollution problems are caused almost entirely by local industry.

所謂assumption, 若否定該前提將導致原結論不成立, 個人覺得A的問題在於 "almost entirely". 對A取非, 則: in most major cities, air-pollution problems are not ENTIRELY caused by local industry, 即變成部分否定: 有的是local industry導致, 有的不是... 如此無法必然推斷出原命題結論....

繼續討論...

[yuying]

同意pudding版主的說法中" almost entirely"的確是最關鍵的問題

題目是air-pollution regulations on local industry→ bird species increase
如果將題目倒過來再還沒開始impose regulations時:
local industry → air polluction → bird species decrease
由此得知，只要是local industry 造成air pollution 就會導致bird species下降，不需要是almost entirely 的空氣污染都是來自local industry。
只要是local industry 的確會造成air polluction，原命題就成立。
至於local industry污染空氣占所有air polluction的比例有多大 ，就不是那麼重要了。只要至少有一部分, 且這一部分影響bird species數量就可以了。

以上是小妹的意見，如果錯誤還請指正。

[yuying]

今天複習時, 看到OG針對195題(B)(D)選項的解釋, 就想起了大全這一題(A)選項的錯誤點
幾乎是相同的觀念: almost entirely 和 the only source 這種绝對範圍的限制語是否是需要的
正確選項也明確表達了不需要全部, 只需要因素對結果有影響性
哈 挺有意思滴 Logic Error不斷重複

195.
A proposed change to federal income tax laws would eliminate deductions from taxable income for donations a taxpayer has made to charitable and educational institutions. If this change were adopted, wealthy individuals would no longer be permitted such deductions. Therefore, many charitable and educational institutions would have to reduce services, and some would have to close their doors.

(A) Without the incentives offered by federal income tax laws, at least some wealthy individuals would not donate as much money to charitable and educational institutions as they otherwise would have.
(B) Money contributed by individuals who make their donations because of provisions in the federal tax laws provides the only source of funding for many charitable and educational institutions.

(D) Wealthy individuals who donate money to charitable and educational institutions are the only individuals who donate money to such institutions.


Choice A is the best answer, since if this statement is false, all wealthy individuals would, even without the incentive provided by federal tax laws, donate as much money as they do now. In that case, the evidence used in the argument provides no support for the conclusion.

Choice B is not assumed: the argument need only assume that many institutions depend heavily, but not necessarily exclusively, on donations from such individuals.

Choice D is not assumed: as far as the argument is concerned, there can be many other individuals who donate money to the institutions.

[Ace]

A確實可以說得過去
但我覺得D才是最好的答案
(D)An increase in the number of bird species in and around a city is desirable.
空氣品質的提升 我覺得鳥種類的數量作為假設前提就有點過於偏頗
並非每個城市的鳥類都對於空氣污染敏感
更誇張點,也並非每個城市都有鳥類
我覺得每個城市空污改善以鳥類種類增多作為前提假設 是不是有點怪

A取非後看不出來哪裡有假設的意味 :DD