扫描二维码，直接登录
题库 / OG2016-CR-108
Studies in restaurants show that the tips left by customers who pay their bill in cash tend to be larger when the bill is presented on a tray that bears a creditcard logo. Consumer psychologists hypothesize that simply seeing a credit-card logo makes many creditcard holders willing to spend more because it reminds them that their spending power exceeds the cash they have immediately available.
Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the psychologists' interpretation of the studies?
The effect noted in the studies is not limited to patrons who have credit cards.
Patrons who are under financial pressure from their credit-card obligations tend to tip less when presented with a restaurant bill on a tray with a credit-card logo than when the tray has no logo.
In virtually all of the cases in the studies, the patrons who paid bills in cash did not possess credit cards.
In general, restaurant patrons who pay their bills in cash leave larger tips than do those who pay by credit card.
The percentage of restaurant bills paid with a given brand of credit card increases when that credit card's logo is displayed on the tray with which the bill is presented.
情景：研究表明，用现金付账的顾客，当其账单用带信用卡logo的盘子递上来时，他们付的小费更多。专家推测，看见信用卡logo导致那些人付得多，因为logo提醒他们自己的消费能力超过了手头的现金数额。
推理：本题的前提明显是时间关联，结论给出了因果关系，属于相关因果推理。
前提：“信用卡logo”和“付钱多”具有相关关系
结论：信用卡logo导致了付钱多
选题方式：相关因果推理有四个评估方向，简而言之，即，要么同时提及“信用卡logo”和“付钱多”，要么给“付钱多”另一个原因。
选项分析：
A选项：上述效应不仅仅限于有信用卡的人。本选项只提到了信用卡，没有提到“果”。
B选项：Correct. 有信用卡还贷压力的顾客，如果用有信用卡logo的盘子递账单，小费更少。本选项同时提到了推理文段的因和果，即，证明了信用卡logo和小费确实有关系。属于CQ1：相关性存在问题。
C选项：在所有案例中，用现金付账的顾客都没有信用卡。本选项只提到了信用卡，没有提到“果”。
D选项：一般来说，用现金付账的顾客比用信用卡付账的顾客支付的小费更多。本选项没有提及推理文段的因果（用什么付账，都可能看到信用卡的logo）。
E选项：如果信用卡logo被印在递账单的盘子上，用这种卡付账的人数会增多。本选项只提到了信用卡，没有提到“果”。
B说的是有信用卡logo就付钱少啊，可是题目是有Logo就付钱多啊，这怎么能加强结论呢？
题目中要求supports the psychologists' interpretation，那么先要找到interpretation是什么。啊，原来是这句‘’because it reminds them that their spending power exceeds the cash they have immediately available.‘’所以提炼之后的核心就是simply seeing a credit-card logo会remind消费者并导致一个行为发生。
这个理解了，就知道应该选B了
当然可以了，加强了因果的相关性啊，典型的相关因果的推理方式。
能不能理解为A，however，not B这条不适用于相关-推理？
一般不都是选项取非后削弱结论，选项才是加强么。虽然B说明了logo和小费间的关系，可是B是削弱呀？
不能。A，however，not B这是一个简单的问法啊，和什么推理毫无关系。它就等同于A, therefore B，问削弱啊
这难道不是理解为：要加强 看到logo会导致顾客付更多。B是说有还贷压力的人看到logo不会付更多而是付更少，这难道不是削弱吗？因为 原文 不是论证两者有联系，而是A会导致B， 选项 说A要分类讨论，有种情况下A是不会导致B的，这就是削弱呀。。。
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论