OG12 逻辑37，什么意思啊？高人解答一下吧

anenxi

Thyrianlawmaker:Thyria'sCheeseImportationBoardinspectsallcheeseshipmentstoThyriaandrejects
shipmentsnotmeetingspecifiedstandards.Yetonly1percentiseverrejected.Therefore,sincethehealth
consequencesandassociatedeconomiccostsofnotrejectingthat1percentarenegligible,whereasthe
board'soperatingcostsareconsiderable,foreconomicreasonsalonetheboardshouldbedisbanded.

Consultant:Idisagree.Thethreatofhavingtheirshipmentsrejecteddetersmanycheeseexportersfrom
shippingsubstandardproduct.

Theconsultantrespondstothelawmaker'sargumentby?

(A)rejectingthelawmaker'sargumentwhileproposingthatthestandardsaccordingtowhichtheboard
inspectsimportedcheeseshouldberaised

(B)providingevidencethatthelawmaker'sargumenthassignificantlyoverestimatedthecostofmaintaining
theboard

(C)objectingtothelawmaker'sintroducingintothediscussionfactorsthatarenotstrictlyeconomic

(D)pointingoutabenefitofmaintainingtheboard,whichthelawmaker'sargumenthasfailedtoconsider

(E)shiftingthediscussionfromtheargumentathandtoanattackontheintegrityofthecheeseinspectors

mygod12

题目说，lawmaker说cheese检查部门查所有入口cheese才发现1%不达标的cheese，1%太少没甚么影晌，考虑到部门 ...
yongjiew 发表于 2011-11-24 06:39

    thanks

hjbb1027

我发觉C选项的问题在于，that从句修饰的事lawmaker的discussion factors还是consultant自己的想法，意思模糊，所以不同人又不同的理解

yknxhdsy

我想问的是，原文说Board可以起到威慑作用，显然是对出口商从心理上造成一定的威慑，这个心理因素确实是tha ...
gdboy8888 发表于 2011-11-25 20:50

我在做题的时候也是错选了C，和楼上的一样，但是仔细分析了一下：


lawmaker想取消board的原因包括三个：
1、reject的那1%如果不被reject，带来的健康危害很小
2、reject的那1%如果不被reject，带来的金钱损失很小
3、运营成本高
也就是说lawmaker是基于economic和 non-economic（health）的双重考虑


C选项：
Theconsultant responds to the lawmaker's argument by objectingto the lawmaker’s introducing into the discussion factors thatare notstrictly economic


也就是说，因为lawmaker没有完全考虑经济经济，所以consultant反对它。
推理得：consultant不赞成考虑非经济因素。——这就和consultant那段话矛盾了。因为consultant认为要保留board，可以规范那些低于标准的产品不进入市场，这肯定是会对健康和经济都有好处的

gdboy8888

我想问的是，原文说Board可以起到威慑作用，显然是对出口商从心理上造成一定的威慑，这个心理因素确实是that are not strictly economic啊，怎么就不对呢，谢谢！

genius1824

遇到这种题的时候该怎么办呢。。。根本读不懂，更无法做题了。。。

yongjiew

题目说，lawmaker说cheese检查部门查所有入口cheese才发现1%不达标的cheese，1%太少没甚么影晌，考虑到部门营运费，应该取消这个部门。consultant反对说，就是这1%让运cheese的人不敢运次品。

问consultant用甚么反驳点。

A，反对lawmaker同时题出提高标准 -- 从没提及，无关
B，题出证据lawmaker高估了营运费 -- 从没提及，无关
C，反对lawmaker的论点不是纯考虑钱 -- lawmaker刚好就是在考虑钱，颠覆原文
D，指出部门带来甚么好处但被lawmaker忽略了 -- 好处就是文中提及"这1%让运cheese的人不敢运次品"，而lawmaker刚好对这1%耻之以鼻
E，转换话题攻击部门 -- 从没提及，无关

glaxosmith

Answer D is correct.

The logic behind the argument is that - although the board only rejects 1% of total shipment, it forces the manufactures to make sure the other 99% are above the standard. If you do not have the board, all the manufacture can cheat and produce below standard cheese, which would cost a much larger economic loss than maintaining the board.

In an analogy, we need the presence of police to make sure the citizens behave nicely.  Without the police, everyone can be tempted to become a thief in daylight.  Thus, paying the police is a logical conclusion and an economically sound one.