Since it has become known that several of a bank's top executives have been buying shares in their own bank, the bank's depositors, who had been worried by rumors that the bank faced impending financial collapse, have been greatly relieved. They reason that, since top executives evidently have faith in the bank's financial soundness, those worrisome rumors must be false. Such reasoning might well be overoptimistic, however, since corporate executives have been known to buy shares in their own company in a calculated attempt to dispel negative rumors about the company's health.
In the argument given, the two boldfaced portions play which of the following roles?
The first describes evidence that has been taken as supporting a conclusion; the second gives a reason for questioning that support.
The first describes evidence that has been taken as supporting a conclusion; the second states a contrary conclusion that is the main conclusion of the argument.
The first provides evidence in support of the main conclusion of the argument; the second states that conclusion.
The first describes the circumstance that the argument as a whole seeks to explain; the second gives the explanation that the argument seeks to establish.
The first describes the circumstance that the argument as a whole seeks to explain; the second provides evidence in support of the explanation that the argument seeks to establish.
情景:由于听说了银行的几个高管购买了本银行的股票,银行的储户,本来为银行即将崩溃的谣言所担心的,现在也轻松多了。储户说,因为银行高管也购买了本银行的股票,所以那些谣言肯定是假的。然而,这种说法可能过于乐观了,因为高管公开购买了本银行股票就是想驱散谣言。
推理:第一个黑体字是一个既定的现象,是一个前提。第二个黑体字是整个推理文段的立场但不是结论,结论是“可能过于乐观了,”)。
选题方式:略
选项分析:
A选项: Correct. 第一个黑体字是用来支持一个结论的证据;第二个黑体字给出了用来质疑那个支持的原因。
B选项:第一个黑体字是用来支持一个结论的证据;第二个黑体字声明了一个相反的主结论。第二个黑体字和第一个黑体字不是相反的,而是给出了第一个黑体字的一种解读。
C选项:第一个黑体字提供了支持主结论的证据;第二个黑体字是主结论。第二个黑体字并不是主结论。
D选项:第一个黑体字描述了一个论证整体寻找解释的情况;第二个黑体字给出了这个解释。第二个黑体字并不是直接给出的解释,而只是解释了一下为什么这种考虑可能过于乐观了。
E选项:第一个黑体字描述了一个论证整体寻找解释的情况;第二个黑体字提供了支持这个解释的证据。第二个黑体字并没有给出任何证据。
evidence一定是存在的既定事实,因此第一个黑体字是evidence,而第二个黑体字,陈述高管买股票的可能意图,只能是一种explain或者给出的一个reason,而不算是一个evidence
D:The second gives the explanation that the argument seeks to establish. - the explanation that the argument would establish would be the conclusion endorsed by the argument. The second statement is a premise, not a conclusion endorsed by the argument. 【续】
D:The first describes the circumstance that the argument as a whole seeks to explain - the entire argument is explaining a circumstance. The first bold statement itself is not doing it. It only explains why people are relieved - the conclusion which the argument questions.
还是不太懂,那D里第二句说只是解释了为什么这种考虑过于乐观,可这不就是结论吗,给了结论一个解释,不对吗
选项A的意思是在说第一个黑体字只是在表明一个证据,而这个证据并不偏向任何一方——这种说法是乐观,或是不乐观?我仍然觉得第一个黑体字只是在描述一个事实,而没有偏向哪一方的意思呀?
我也是这么认为的
这个题的结构是,第一个黑体字:银行高管买股票,这个evidence支持储户得出结论:谣言是假的。然后主conclusion出现,这些储户的结论太乐观了,然后第二个黑体字来解释的是主结论,为什么太乐观了,因为blablabla
另外,这个论断其实也不是在讨论“银行高管也购买了本银行的股”的事情,而是说,不能在argue不能高管买股票,就觉得谣言没问题。
这个题我也错了两次,最终说服了自己。。。
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论
第二个黑体字给出了这个解释。第二个黑体字并不是直接给出的解释,而只是解释了一下为什么这种考虑可能过于乐观了。
错了俩次
错了