In countries where automobile insurance includes compensation for whiplash injuries sustained in automobile accidents, reports of having suffered such injuries are twice as frequent as they are in countries where whiplash is not covered. Presently, no objective test for whiplash exists, so it is true that spurious reports of whiplash injuries cannot be readily identified. Nevertheless, these facts do not warrant the conclusion drawn by some commentators that in the countries with the higher rates of reported whiplash injuries, half of the reported cases are spurious. Clearly, in countries where automobile insurance does not include compensation for whiplash, people often have little incentive to report whiplash injuries that they actually have suffered.
In the argument given, the two boldfaced portions play which of the following roles?
The first is a claim that the argument disputes; the second is a conclusion that has been based on that claim.
The first is a claim that has been used to support a conclusion that the argument accepts; the second is that conclusion.
The first is evidence that has been used to support a conclusion for which the argument provides further evidence; the second is the main conclusion of the argument.
The first is a finding whose implications are at issue in the argument; the second is a claim presented in order to argue against deriving certain implications from that finding.
The first is a finding whose accuracy is evaluated in the argument; the second is evidence presented to establish that the finding is accurate.
情景:略
推理:第一个黑体字其实是一个既定的现象,推理文段一直在寻求对这种现象的正确的解释。第二个黑体字是推理文段的主结论,也是对第一个黑体字这个现象的一种解释。
选题方式:略
选项分析:
A选项:第一个黑体字是论证所质疑的一个声明;第二个黑体字是基于第一个黑体字所得出的结论。推理文段并没有反对第一个黑体字,而是基于第一个黑体字给出多种推测。
B选项:第一个黑体字是一个用来支持论证接受的结论的证据;第二个黑体字是论证的主结论。第一个黑体字是直接支持推理文段的主结论的。
C选项:第一个黑体字是一个用来支持一个论证为其提供了更多的证据的结论的证据;第二个黑体字是论证的主结论。第一个黑体字是直接支持推理文段的主结论的。
D选项:Correct. 第一个黑体字是一个其含义在论证中被讨论的发现;第二个黑体字是一个为了去反对一个从第一个黑体字中解读出的错误的含义的声明。
E选项:第一个黑体字是一个其准确性被评估的发现;第二个黑体字是确定该发现是准确的证据。推理文段没有讨论第一个黑体字给出的证据的准确性,而是尝试去解释那个证据。
请忽略我上一条,还是用“含义”解释才对
这题完全考的是一个词汇,implication,a situation in which it is shown or suggested that someone or something is involved in a crime or a dishonest act,并不是含义,而是不诚实的举动
首句用report引出了两个情况,Nevertheless引出作者的观点(do not warrant ),clearly引出对结论的支持(确实不是假的案例,而是另一种情况很多人不愿意去上报)。Adispute没体现,这是既定事实;B并没有直接支持,是个现象,可以给现象不同的解释;C既定事实,不偏不倚;D 文中在讨论事实背后机理,先给了一个机理,作者反对,用第二句话进一步反对,正确;E没讲这个正不正确
第一句是一个发现,锁定finding,第二句是对发现的反驳
这篇文章的conclusion其实是these facts do not warrant the conclusion drawn by some commentators that in the countries with the higher rates of reported whiplash injuries, half of the reported cases are spurious
老师给的解释里,说“第二个黑体字是推理文段的主结论,也是对第一个黑体字这个现象的一种解释。“
可OG里说”the second is not the argument‘s conclusion“,怎么回事?
A中的dispute不是争议讨论吗?为什么翻译成质疑?
①warrent V.使有正当理由
②保险覆盖A病的国家收到的报告:A病的发病频率两倍于没有覆盖A病的国家
目前没有test可以检验A病,所以有些A病报告是假的(所以实际可能低于两倍?)
(结论)但是这些事实都不能使一评论员的结论有理:那些有着高发病率的国家有一半的report都是造假的
因为保险没有覆盖A病的国家的人可能压根就没有动力去report这个疾病
错选A:这里搞清楚dispute这个词,意为“争辩,辩论”,文中别没有就此铲开争辩,而是默认其真实的事实,其实这里可以讲第一句话描述成‘reject’ 主结论,因为在此句和结论之间有转折词nevertheless.
第二个不是结论,是一个claim,或者说是explanation。结论是Nevertheless那句。
第一句相对客观,可以用evidence, fact, finding
第二句相对主观,可以用claim, conclusion, position
靠谱
第二个不是结论?毕老师解释中说了这个是主结论诶。
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论
选项C的答案很含糊,第一部分的诠释也很合理,为何不对?第二部分明显为主结论,选项D却用定位为claim(而不是conclusion或position)。
请老师解答。
+1
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论
参考ron的claim和facts
没有笔记本吗
老师,解析中对于“推理”的解释,我完全明天,也是这么判断的,但是C选项对“第一个黑体字”的解释,没有看明白,为什么不对呢?
其实不难,第一句明显是事实,排除AB;第二句明显是一个结论,排除E;然后句意判断第二句明显是反驳上面的一个观点,所以选against。
同,第二个不是结论,是一个claim,或者说是explanation。结论是Nevertheless那句。
第二个不是结论!!是一个claim, against the previous argument
C选项的翻译我是服气的...跪了
The first is a finding whose implications are at issue(在争论中)
第一句提出一个现象
第二句 反驳对此现象做出的某个解释 第二句的deriving certain implications 指的是conclusion drawn by some commentators that in the countries with the higher rates of reported whiplash injuries, half of the reported cases are spurious. 也就是说 第二句的作用是反对评论家从此现象得到他们的结论
mark,黑脸题。
第一句相对客观,可以用evidence, fact, finding
第二句相对主观,可以用claim, conclusion, position