xiongbaobao

GWD-3-Q32:
Newspaper editorial:

In an attempt to reduce the crime rate, the governor is getting tough on criminals and making prison conditions harsher.  Part of this effort has been to deny inmates（在监狱服刑的人） the access they formerly had to college-level courses.  However, this action is clearly counter to the governor’s ultimate goal, since after being released from prison, inmates who had taken such courses committed far fewer crimes overall than other inmates.
政府官员的目标：减少犯罪
做法：使服刑期间可以上大学的犯人不能上大学
评价：上过大学的人出狱后本来就更少犯罪。
隐含假设：上大学导致犯罪减少。
Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

A.        Not being able to take college-level courses while in prison is unlikely to deter anyone from a crime that he or she might otherwise have committed.
B.        Former inmates are no more likely to commit crimes than are members of the general population.
C.        The group of inmates who chose to take college-level courses were not already less likely than other inmates to commit crimes after being released. 不是其他原因或可能导致该结果
D.        Taking high school level courses in prison has less effect on an inmate’s subsequent behavior than taking college-level courses does.
E.        The governor’s ultimate goal actually is to gain popularity by convincing people that something effective is being done about crime.[C]
Lawyer
1。A取非是：该措施（不让读大学课程）有可能有效。这不但不对结论否定作用，还起支持作用，所以不可能是假设
2。C排除他因，排除是允许去读大学课程的人本来就好导致释放后犯罪少的它因。从而肯定是政府该政策起作用的原因。
这个题目怎么可能是A呢，当然是C啊。很典型的排除他因啊。结论是：读书的人犯罪率相对低，暗含的意思是，是读书（而不是其他）使得他们出来后犯罪率相对较低。要支持这个结论，假设就是：只有读书这一个原因影响犯罪率，没有其他原因，C不正好符合吗。C说的是选择读书的人并不是本身就比别人犯罪率低，是读书才使他们与别人区别开来啊。
我记得这种题目应该是ETS比较喜欢出的类型，只是大多见于削弱：比如说一个试验结果是，参加了某某某培训的孩子比别的孩子聪明表现好，结论是，这种类型的培训能够提高孩子的智力，改善他们的表现。要求削弱，答案就是：这群参加试验的孩子本身就比别人聪明。这道题目不是一样嘛，如果这些犯人本身就比别的犯人犯罪率低，那读书对他们出去后的犯罪率的影响就不可评估了啊。
This is an interesting question. To effectively solve CR, one must to analyze an argument's line of reasoning(LoR). Actually there are two arguments here, that of the governor’s and that of the passage author’s.
LoR of the governor: deny college course --> make prison harsher --> reduce crime rate. LoR of the author: inmates who take courses will commit fewer crimes after release --> denying them course will lead to more crimes by them after release --> governor's action won't reduce crime rate.
Since the question ask for assumption of the author’s argument, only the author’s LoR is relevant.
Now let's look at A, which says "Not being able to ... is unlikely to deter anyone from a crime ..." (不能读书不会deter任何人) You probably can already tell that this is not relevant to the author's LoR (although it's relevant to governor's LoR). So, choice A is not relevant. You don’t even needs to try deny test here.
Now let’s look at C. C says "...inmates who chose to take courses were not already less likely ... to commit crimes after being released." Deny C, we get "...inmates who chose to take college-level courses were already less likely... to commit crimes after being released." In other words, denying them course will not lead to more crimes by them after release. This directly contradicts the author’s LoR and cause the argument to fall apart. So, C is a necessary assumption of the author.

xiongbaobao

GWD-2-18
Last year all refuse collected by Shelbyville city services was incinerated.  This incineration generated a large quantity of residue ash.背景 In order to reduce the amount of residue ash Shelbyville generates this year to half of last year’s total, the city has revamped its collection program. 目的 This year city services will separate for recycling enough refuse to reduce the number of truckloads of refuse to be incinerated to half of last year’s number. 措施
Truckload减少一半----垃圾火花产生的灰减半 GAP
Which of the following is required for the revamped collection program to achieve its aim? 目的可否达成。措施的有效性（找准具体措施）

A.        This year, no materials that city services could separate for recycling will be incinerated.
B.        Separating recyclable materials from materials to be incinerated will cost Shelbyville less than half what it cost last year to dispose of the residue ash.
C.        Refuse collected by city services will contain a larger proportion of recyclable materials this year than it did last year.
D.        The refuse incinerated this year will generate no more residue ash per truckload incinerated than did the refuse incinerated last year. truckload数量减半，但平均火化后的灰不能增多
E.        The total quantity of refuse collected by Shelbyville city services this year will be no greater than that collected last year.[D]
明白了原文推理的GAP，就明白了答案。原文推理是the number of truckloads of refuse to be incinerated 减少到去年的一半，所以产生的residue ash 也会减少到去年的一半。它的GAP在拿去烧的垃圾减少一半，产生的灰也减少一半。C只会影响今年产生的垃圾，并没有填补原文推理的GAP。只有D才填补了这个GAP

xiongbaobao

GWD-2-Question 11:
Many people suffer an allergic reaction to certain sulfites, including those that are commonly added to wine as preservatives.  However, since there are several wine makers who add sulfites to none of the wines they produce, people who would like to drink wine but are allergic to sulfites can drink wines produced by these wine makers without risking an allergic reaction to sulfites.
喝没有添加S的酒就不会对S过敏。没有添加不等于没有
A被加进去某样东西，人们对加进去的这样东西有反映；要消除人们的反应，也要看A本身有没有这样东西。
Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

A.        These wine makers have been able to duplicate the preservative effect produced by adding sulfites by means that do not involve adding any potentially allergenic substances to their wine.反前提
B.        Not all forms of sulfite are equally likely to produce the allergic reactions.横向比较无关。
C.        Wine is the only beverage to which sulfites are commonly added.无关
D.        Apart from sulfites, there are no substances commonly present in wine that give rise to an allergic reaction.范围扩大（见补充例）
E.        Sulfites are not naturally present in the wines produced by these wine makers in amounts large enough to produce an allergic reaction in someone who drinks these wines.
结论是讲对S的过敏。而D说只说过敏，没具体说对S的过敏。
但是MINDFREE 举了个例子，
There is no wolf in the woods. So it should be safe for kids to play there. Assumption: there is no other wild animals such as tiger or snake that pose dange to kid.
对于MINDFREE的例子的结论讲，MINDFREE是对的，因为该结论没有针对WOLF。如果结论改为KIDS CAN PALY THERE WITHOUT RISKING THE ATTACK OF WOLF，则该假设错。因为结论局限于WOLF。楼主的题也一样，因为结论局限于without risking an allergic reaction to sulfites。所以D说的其他物质就无关了。