Board logo

标题: 遇到一道比较阴险的逻辑题,提醒大家要小心这类题 [打印本页]

作者: redli    时间: 2002-10-24 13:23     标题: 遇到一道比较阴险的逻辑题,提醒大家要小心这类题

In 1973, a remote town first acquired television. Shortly before broadcasts began there, a study was made of children's behavior. A similar study in the same community, after two years of TV, showed that the aggression rate among children of this age had increased by 160%. The conclusion drawn was that TV plays an important role in generating aggressive behavior in children. A similar study, covering the same years, was made in two similar communities that had had television for decades. This study showed no change in the aggression rate from 1973 to 1975. The results of the second study:

A) suggest that the prevalence of violent themes in TV programming may be explained by the tendencies toward violence which are deeply-rooted in human nature.

B) indicate that different social groups may react quite differently to similar stimuli.

C) demonstrate that long-term exposure to TV has no more severe effects than short-term exposure.

D) support the conclusion drawn from the first study.

E) disprove the conclusion drawn from the first study.
答案是D,大家小心不要选到C
作者: tongxun    时间: 2002-10-24 13:44

对。一定要仔细阅读题目。这个题目在年限上做了手脚。
我刚一看C,还觉得挺好的呢。
作者: 决战金秋    时间: 2002-10-25 11:41

讲给星月同学:
这是LSAT下册某题的改形
也就是说第一个STUDY在1973开始对比到1975年对小孩做的调查,得出结论电视节目如何如
何对孩子不好;话锋一转,同年调查那些老油条,发现1973-1975 no change(这是鬼子最喜欢搞鬼的地方,NO CHANGE和increased是求异的,其实凭这一句就可以确定D)。
简单地说:老油条没变化,孩子变了。电视对孩子不好。
中间的干扰一堆:什么新用电视的,用了几十年的等等,全都不用理会。
个人认为:动词和正反义转折词是解决ETS的工具(GRE和GMAT一样)
作者: tongxun    时间: 2002-10-25 12:04

讲的非常清晰。谢谢!
作者: 星月多多    时间: 2002-10-25 12:10

谢谢决战金秋:)
我相信金秋,你也一定能炖出一份上好的鸡汤:)
你的老油条是指已经用了很多年电视的社区?调查的是这个地区的老油条小孩,呵呵~~~:)?
作者: bessette    时间: 2002-10-25 12:14

我的理解是:

the study after the community's acquiring TV showed the increase, but after decades after the two similiar communities' acquiring TV, another study showed no change( 就是说还是 increased 160%).

所谓的 no change means that the rate increased from 1973-1975 remains 160%,
不过如果考到这题, 我会选 E 的
作者: tongxun    时间: 2002-10-25 12:44

使用多年电视的地区=老油条。
bessette:你为什么还选E?不明白。
作者: redli    时间: 2002-10-25 13:08

tongxun:
      本来我对这道题理解还挺清晰,怎么越看这些解释越糊涂,你能再帮我解释一下,别有“老油条”!
作者: redli    时间: 2002-10-25 16:17

我刚才有想了一下那道题,原来的理解应该是对的,

第一个STUDY(新电视区):安装电视后比安装前犯罪率提高60%,所以电视对犯罪有影响;
第二个STUDY(老电视区):73-75犯罪率没有变化,比如过电视对犯罪的影响占60%,几年来这一比率未变,说明电视对犯罪的影响还保持60%的高比率,所以证明上面观点。
作者: zyh79    时间: 2002-10-25 16:32

我对这题真是不解:
第二个STUDY中的no change 到底指什么?
1)无变化。但如果1973电视对犯罪的影响占30%,现在还保持30%,就不能说明问题了。题目好像并没告诉我们1973的情况。
2)increased 160%。也就是说,就算老电视区,1973-1975年犯罪还是增长。这好像不能支持电视对犯罪有影响啊。比如说,老电视区自有电视那时起犯罪就一直未变,只是1973-1975年犯罪增长
另外,第二个STUDY说在两个相似的老电视区进行研究,这是什么意思?
希望大家一起帮助解答!
作者: redli    时间: 2002-10-25 16:52

ZHY79:
1)两个STUDY研究的地区不同
2)第一个SUTDY是只“犯罪率提高的比例”,而第二STUDY是“犯罪率”
3)第一个:73-75,电视新安装(一种变化),犯罪率提高(另一种变化),另same community就是指其他方面没有区别,所以两个变化有关系
4)第二个:73-75,犯罪率未变,比如90%,其中受电视影响的占60%,几年来一直未变,也就是说电视对犯罪始终保持高影响率。
作者: zyh79    时间: 2002-10-25 17:07

1.第一个指the aggression rate had increased by 160%
  第二个指no change in the aggression rate
  这应该都在说the aggression rate。
2。第二个:73-75,犯罪率未变,比如90%,其中受电视影响的占60%
   这个60%怎么来的,
   几年来一直未变,是指犯罪率没变还是指电视对犯罪影响率没变
咳,这题我还没转过来
作者: ballet    时间: 2002-10-25 23:17

解释不对吧,这道题的题眼在“CHILDREN”上,第一个调查是看到孩子的暴力倾向加大,第二个调查是那些老社区暴力倾向没有变化。
作者: ballet    时间: 2002-10-25 23:27

zyh理解没错,其实是调查的对象不一样,导致调查结果相互之间没有矛盾(是不是支持就说不上了)。
作者: cook    时间: 2002-10-26 02:31

NO, I don't great with ballet, sorry.

Redi is right . Summarize the two study which, actually both was made of children's behavior:

1. Conclusion: "TV plays an important role in generating aggressive behavior in children"
Premise: study showed that the aggression rate among children of this age had increased by 160%Children"

Pay attention to children: because a study is conducted shortly before broadcasts began there===> TV is very new to Children here.

2. Conclusion: is exact the question.
Premise: This study showed no change in the aggression rate from 1973 to 1975.
Pay attention to : Children is in the two communities that had had television for decades and same time we are told that "A similar study" , "covering same year 1973-1975".


So, Children new to TV----> changed 160% after two years 1973-1975.
    CHildren used to TV ----> unchanged after two years 1973-1975 ====> Actually this study is a contrast to above one.

Conclusion: "TV plays an important role in generating aggressive behavior in children"

We should very close to the difference between two contrasts.
作者: tongxun    时间: 2002-10-26 12:31

我支持cook的分析。
作者: zyh79    时间: 2002-10-26 13:29

根据对上述观点的理解,第二项研究的作用我觉得就是排除它因
作者: bessette    时间: 2002-10-27 10:31

但我还有一个疑问,为什么第二项研究要选two similar communities,因为按照zyh79的"排除他因"理论,那么 a similar study, covering the same years, was made in ONE similar community that had had television for decades.....,就足以排除他因啦!

请指正!

to tongxun,
考试是我为什么还选E,因为看过一遍题目,我印象最深的就是 no change in similar study
about ...similar communities..., 所以第一判断就是the second study weaken(disprove) the conclusion of the first study. 惭愧!!!!!
作者: zyh79    时间: 2002-10-27 11:30

bessette,
你的这个问题我也提出过,很令人费解,我总觉得题目对于第二个study的描述很怪。
后来我用这样的理由试图说服自己
“用两个相似地域作比较比用一个相似地域作比较更客观些”
但未说服成功。
作者: bessette    时间: 2002-10-27 16:43

to zyh79,

我估计你会用这个理由来解释的:)

现在我发觉在做CR的题时,如果你太在意细节就会被细节困惑住,但如果不注意细节又会忽略掉关键解题信息,这题我看第一遍选E,第二遍选D,看第三遍时已经分不清主次了。

in the end, 其实对两个相识地域的比较我觉得不是接这道题的关键,如果硬要给出个所以然,我同意你的观点.
作者: zyh79    时间: 2002-10-27 16:57

谢谢你的支持,还望继续共同探讨lsat和一些逻辑机井。
作者: bessette    时间: 2002-10-27 17:38

互相学习!! 我在做LSAT时,不会放过任何一个可疑的地方的,这也是我为题比较多的原因,希望zyh79和其他高手不要笑话我,能得到这里众多高手的指正是我的荣欣!!

大家一起努力把!!




欢迎光临 国际顶尖MBA申请交流平台--TOPWAY MBA (http://forum.topway.org/) Powered by Discuz! 7.2