[問題]OG170

[Clara]

15. The proposal to hire ten new police officers in Middletown is quite foolish. There is sufficient funding to pay the salaries of the new officers, but not the salaries of additional court and prison employees to process the increased caseload of arrests and convictions that new officers usually generate.

Which of the following, if true, will most seriously weaken the conclusion drawn above?

(A) Studies have shown that an increase in a city’s police force does not necessarily reduce crime.


(B) When one major city increased its police force by 19 percent last year, there were 40 percent more arrests and 13 percent more convictions.

(C) If funding for the new police officers’ salaries is approved, support for other city services will have to be reduced during the next fiscal year.


(D) In most United States cities, not all arrests result in convictions, and not all convictions result in prison terms.（E）

(E) Middletown’s ratio of police officers to citizens has reached a level at which an increase in the number of officers will have a deterrent effect on crime.



我兩次都選了同一個答案D
OG:Choice D is irrelevent; it merely states the obvious about rate of arrest, conviction, and imprisonment.
我不了解為什麼D是無關選項??
我的思路
D:並不是所有的犯人被逮捕後就會被宣判刑責,並不是被宣判刑責之後一定會去坐牢 --> 所以並不一定會造成花費 -->所以weaken題目的預設立場;
沒有足夠的經費處理逮捕,入獄之事

正確解答E
給我一種過度臆測的感覺,
當警民比到一個程度後,犯罪率下降
-->所以花費減少
我始終覺得好像是ets自己延展出花費減少的答案....
不太懂
還請指教

[agk99]

題目是說
提議新聘任十位警官是件不智的舉動(argument)，理由是，雖然有足夠的資金應付警官的薪水，卻沒有足夠資金應付衍生而來的法官、獄卒(真的很鬱卒)，以及一些相關成本。

要你weaken 這個argument，當然是說其實增加警官就能減少犯罪，就是E(不但沒有額外成本的問題，也不是一件不智的舉動)

D的選項真的不太好，not all=some, 這種在原題沒有 some的情況下不該選的

[cocaine]

E.換個點想就是說 犯罪減少,所以並不會有所謂的法官薪資成本增加(因為罪犯變少,所以法官沒事做)

D.只是部分否定而已,就是說某些地方是ok,不過某些地方是不ok.
這樣無法作為weaken哩.

[Pudding]

提議新聘任十位警官是件不智的舉動(argument)，理由是，雖然有足夠的資金應付警官的薪水，卻沒有足夠資金 應付衍生而來的法官、獄卒(真的很鬱卒)，以及一些相關成本。

哈哈... agk你很耍寶ㄟ...

D:並不是所有的犯人被逮捕後就會被宣判刑責,並不是被宣判刑責之後一定會去坐牢 --> 所以並不一定會造成花費 -->所以weaken題目的預設立場;
沒有足夠的經費處理逮捕,入獄之事

Clara, 如你所寫, D選項完全在闡述一個 "不一定"的狀態, 既然是不一定, 那麼就是有可能發生, 也有可能不發生. 因此在發生的情況下, 就確實會造成額外成本, 起不到weaken作用...

正確解答E
給我一種過度臆測的感覺,
當警民比到一個程度後,犯罪率下降
-->所以花費減少
我始終覺得好像是ets自己延展出花費減少的答案....

切記不要質疑CR題目所提出的狀況的可行性. 題目都是在假設該狀況確實發生的前提下來設計的, 這裡不能用經驗值...

[chris8888]

15. The proposal to hire ten new police officers in Middletown is quite foolish. There is sufficient funding to pay the salaries of the new officers, but not the salaries of additional court and prison employees to process the increased caseload of arrests and convictions that new officers usually generate.

Which of the following, if true, will most seriously weaken the conclusion drawn above?
(main argument : 有人提出要增加警察, 但卻說沒有足夠的錢養獄工和法院的人員來處理因為逮捕所造成的案件) 找推翻

(A) Studies have shown that an increase in a city’s police force does not necessarily reduce crime.
研究表示 : 增加警察不必然造成降低犯罪, 沒有提到解決問題的方案,
況且, 不必然造成降低犯罪率, 暗示犯罪會很多, 屆時監獄工人和法院人事還是會負荷不了, 反倒是支持.
(main argument : 推翻說增加警察會導致法院以及監獄人事無法負荷的論點)
(B) When one major city increased its police force by 19 percent last year, there were 40 percent more arrests and 13 percent more convictions.
這是支持, 不是推翻
(main argument : 推翻說增加警察會導致法院以及監獄人事無法負荷的論點)
(C) If funding for the new police officers’ salaries is approved, support for other city services will have to be reduced during the next fiscal year.
其他城市的服務??? 離題
(main argument : 推翻說增加警察會導致法院以及監獄人事無法負荷的論點)
(D) In most United States cities, not all arrests result in convictions, and not all convictions result in prison terms.
逮捕和判決的過程以及定罪的可能性不是重點, 與此方案的成功性無關
(main argument : 推翻說增加警察會導致法院以及監獄人事無法負荷的論點)
(E) Middletown’s ratio of police officers to citizens has reached a level at which an increase in the number of officers will have a deterrent effect on crime.
警察對市民的比率達到某個程度後, 在警察數量上的增加將對犯罪擁有嚇阻性的效果, 果然推翻了反對的立場, 增加警察不必要增加法院和監獄人員的數量, 自然不需要負擔他們的薪資, 因此文章反駁的論點被推翻. 增加警察是可行的方案
(main argument : 推翻說增加警察會導致法院以及監獄人事無法負荷的論點)