Mel: The official salary for judges has always been too low to attract the best candidates to the job. The legislature's move to raise the salary has done nothing to improve the situation, because it was coupled with a ban on receiving money for lectures and teaching engagements.
Pat: No, the raise in salary really does improve the situation. Since very few judges teach or give lectures, the ban will have little or no negative effect.
Pat's response to Mel is inadequate in that it
attempts to assess how a certain change will affect potential members of a group by providing evidence about its effect on the current members.
mistakenly takes the cause of a certain change to be an effect of that change.
attempts to argue that a certain change will have a positive effect merely by pointing to the absence of negative effects.
simply denies Mel's claim without putting forward any evidence in support of that denial .
assumes that changes that benefit the most able members of a group necessarily benefit all members of that group.
current members.指的是现在的judges
👉现在的judges很少有来自lectures的收入、不代表candidates成为法官后不会有这类收入
题目:M说法官的收入太低以至于对优秀人才没什么吸引力。虽然工资上涨了,但是由于禁止通过演讲或授课来赚钱,因此法官境况没啥改观。P反驳说工资上涨改善了法官境况,因为很少有法官去演讲或授课,禁止令基本没什么作用。问P对M的反驳错在哪里。
思路:M说了法官行业的现状:无法吸引到最优秀的候选人加入这个行业。这里潜台词是现在在行业的法官并不是最优秀的选择。然后M还说了涨工资的副作用:伴随的禁令仍然会阻止优秀人才。P说几乎没有法官去做讲座,换句话P认为副作用不存在。但注意到法官是现在的业内人士,不是最优秀的候选,而我们关注的副作用,是要关注对最优秀的候选人的影响。
评估一个change对于潜在成员的影响by providing evidence about its effect on the current members.
思路:M说了法官行业的现状:无法吸引到最优秀的候选人加入这个行业。这里潜台词是现在在行业的法官并不是最优秀的选择。然后M还说了涨工资的副作用:伴随的禁令仍然会阻止优秀人才。P说几乎没有法官去做讲座,换句话P认为副作用不存在。但注意到法官是现在的业内人士,不是最优秀的候选,而我们关注的副作用,是要关注对最优秀的候选人的影响。
Pat's response takes the effect to be the cause, not cause to effect.登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论
B 错误的把改变的原因当成改变的影响,文中没提到,排除
C 靠不提到消极影响来认为某个改变有积极影响,文中没提到,排除
D 直接反驳M的话且不提供证据,P说现在的法官几乎不教课就是证据,故排除D
E 假设对大多数人有效的改变对所有人都有效,混淆选项,一定要注意这个政策是对潜在的竞争者所制定的,和已经进入法官这个职业的人无关
犯了两个错误:
1)一小部分的法官会无偿的去教书不等于那些最有效的人才(effect on the current menber不等于potential members of a group)
2)现在的事情不等于未来的事情(current不等于future)