GWD-6-Q38，请好心的NN帮忙解惑…pls

bigmouser

 

Three large companies and seven small companies currently manufacture a product with potential military applications.  If the government regulates the industry, it will institute a single set of manufacturing specifications to which all ten companies will have to adhere.  In this case, therefore, since none of the seven small companies can afford to convert their production lines to a new set of manufacturing specifications, only the three large companies will be able to remain in business.

 

 

Which of the following is an assumption on which the author’s argument relies?

 

 

1. None of the three large companies will go out of business if the government does not regulate the manufacture of the product.

2. It would cost more to convert the production lines of the small companies to a new set of manufacturing specifications than it would to convert the production lines of the large companies.

3. Industry lobbyists will be unable to dissuade the government from regulating the industry.

4. Assembly of the product produced according to government manufacturing specifications would be more complex than current assembly procedures.

5. None of the seven small companies currently manufactures the product to a set of specifications that would match those the government would institute if the industry were to be regulated.

Answer: E

请教各位大大们,这题A选取非为若政府有规范这产业,三家公司将会go out of business

这个不也WEAKEN结论只有三家公司存活…

虽然我也同意E选,所以在test时满争扎的………

请好心的大大帮忙解惑…pls

simbachu

我认为CONCLUSION 跟THREE LARGE COMPANY 都没什么关系，主要在于规范对小公司的影响

alice2292

QUOTE:

以下是引用bigmouser在2008-12-8 7:18:00的发言：

请教各位大大们,这题A选取非为若政府有规范这产业,三家公司将会go out of business

这个不也WEAKEN结论只有三家公司存活…

虽然我也同意E选,所以在test时满争扎的………

请好心的大大帮忙解惑…pls

取非错误. 应该是All the three large companies will go out of business if the government does not regulate the manufacture of the product.

bigmouser

In this case, therefore, since none of the seven small companies can afford to convert their production lines to a new set of manufacturing specifications, only the three large companies will be able to remain in business.

我会被误导是因黄色部份感觉很像结论…….这部份要如何排除……..

7家小司是重点要如何看出…….???????????

alice2292

QUOTE:

以下是引用bigmouser在2008-12-9 20:36:00的发言：

In this case, therefore, since none of the seven small companies can afford to convert their production lines to a new set of manufacturing specifications, only the three large companies will be able to remain in business.

我会被误导是因黄色部份感觉很像结论…….这部份要如何排除……..

7家小司是重点要如何看出…….???????????

therefore之后都是结论: 7个小公司都负担不起, 只有3家大公司才能存留.

 

问结论的前提? 对于小公司来说, 结论说小公司负担不起, 前提就是 E. 7个小公司都需要整改

 

对于大公司来说, 结论说大公司不破产, 有2种前提: 第一, 大公司不需要整改. 第二, 大公司能负担得起.  这些在选项里都没有.

 

 A说如果政府不规范那么如何如何... 和结论无关. 如果把A改成None of the three large companies will go out of business if the government regulates the manufacture of the product. 则是结论的改写. 也不构成前提.

 

把句子用中文想一遍意思, 应该就能推理出.

 

primefangs

我觉得这里的only the three large company是强调如果没有regulated,那么小企业就can not stay in the business.

hugewaters

我有一点想法,不知道对不对,请大家指教.

首先确定这道题的逻辑结构:如果政府出规定---所有公司都要遵从---小公司无法负担转型费用,退出竞争

---大公司存活.

然后找出论据与结论间的GAP,"小公司无法负担转型费用",小公司是否一定要负担这笔费用呢?如果小公司现有的生产线已经符合规定

那么就不须负担这笔费用了,也就无法推出"退出竞争,只有大公司存活"的结论.要想论据更充分,就得把"小公司现有的生产线不符合规定"

加进去,所以我选E

A.None of the three large companies will go out of business if the government does not regulate the manufacture of the product.

A 错,因为, 根据"如果政府不规定,三家大公司不会退出"这一论据无法判断"政府出规定,三家大公司是否会退出".

wechinas

选项A 其实是个无关选项。 将其取翻就行啦

miaoyin_tx

有那么复杂么，呵呵，其实就是一个文字的trick，题目说的是be able to，就是说大公司有能力转产，有这个可能，就是他们要是想继续干呢，就干，也没说不想干就不行，其实重点是小公司连able都达不到，所以A不是题目想问的，题目最后说小公司没法转换设备，但是前提是在新的标准下干活，到底是不是一定要转换设备才能干呢？题目中的逻辑缺陷是什么就答什么，这里的缺陷就是假设只有转换设备才能在新的标准下干活，但是题目并没说，直接就说转换设备去吧，所以。。