OG12 112 挺有意思的一道题目

kenwk

The average hourly wage of television assemblers in Vernland has long been signifi cantly lower than that in neighboring Borodia. Since Borodia dropped all tariffs on Vernlandian televisions three years ago, the number of televisions sold annually in Borodia has not changed. However, recent statistics show a drop in the number of television assemblers in Borodia. Therefore, updated trade statistics will probably indicate that the number of televisions Borodia imports annually from Vernland has increased.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

(A) The number of television assemblers in Vernland has increased by at least as much as the number of television assemblers in Borodia has decreased.
(B) Televisions assembled in Vernland have features that televisions assembled in Borodia do not have.
(C) The average number of hours it takes a Borodian television assembler to assemble a television has not decreased signifi cantly during the past three years.
(D) The number of televisions assembled annually in Vernland has increased signifi cantly during the past three years.
(E) The difference between the hourly wage of television assemblers in Vernland and the hourly wage of television assemblers in Borodia is likely to decrease in the next few years.

想问下，如果把C中的not decreased 改为not increased这样的答案对吗？因为结论工人少了，导致要进口电视机。如果我说装配一台电视机的时间没有增加，那么也就排除了是因为装配电视机需要增加时间而导致电视机生产量下降，从而需要进口，这样就承认了是进口电视机是工人少了的原因，这个算排除它因嘛？如果这个可以的话，同样一句话，一个是不能减少，一个是不能增加，但都能作为结论的假设或者支持结论的话，我觉得挺奇怪的，请大牛指教

fybtgn

我觉得不对，C的原意是一个必须的假设，因为如果decrease很多的话，那就不需要进口了
如果改成increase的话，那变成没有增加很多，这不是一个必须的假设，改了以后变成出现出现两种情况，hours没变（既没增加也没减少）那么需要进口，hours减少，那么不需要进口，可以产生两种情况，所以不能作为假设。

kenwk

如果变成has not increased后，你对它取非，就变成装配一台电视的时间增加了，这样的话结论-工人少了导致进口增加了不是weaken了嘛？因为可以说是因为装配电视的时间增加了导致产量变少，进口增加，而不是因为工人减少的原因，这个应该算是它因性削弱吧，这样一来的话，has not increased也算是个假设吧，因为取非后消弱了原来的结论。你那样的支持方法是说证明你的premise-工人减少是可行的，工人减少可以导致进口增加，而我的支持方法是排除它因，说明进口增加是由于工人减少导致的，而不是其他原因，这题怪就怪在两个正好是同一句话相反，所以我不知道是两个都对呢，还是我的想法错了，你可以从排除它因这个角度看看我的看法有啥问题吗，谢谢

shlshingse

唔....我刚好也在看这道题。你看看这样的理解对不对。
B地的总电视量=从V进口的+B自己装配的
B自己装配的量又=B装配工人人数*效率
所以B地的总电视量=从V进口的+B装配工人人数*效率

现在我们知道了总电视量不变，B装配工人下降，要推出从V进口电视量增加。
所以我们必须要保证B自己装配的电视量下降。又因为装配工人下降了，所以效率必须小于等于原来的。
所以每个工人所花的average number of hour has not decreased 既效率没提高。

如果按照你说的average number of hour has not increased 则效率有可能提高了，也有可能没变。
如果效率没变，是没问题的。
但是如果效率提高了，就推不出V进口电视量增加了。

justabeginning

恩，有道理!

justabeginning

我怎么觉得“has not decreased significantly”的否命题应该是“decreased significantly”呀？

个人愚见呵

AnttiZhang

这道题是有点小搞，英文，再加上是那种否定性的陈述，理解起来要绕几个弯。6楼的等式很帮助理解，其实就是要证明在B地区自产的TV产量是下降的，既然B地区工人数量减少，如果要保证产量还是下降，即效率不能增加，即每人做一个TV的时间不能减少。