熱血背包客莊ㄟ

A survey was recently conducted among ferry passengers on the North Sea. Among the results was this: more of those who had taken anti-seasickness medication before their trip reported symptoms of seasickness than those who had not taken such medication. It is clear, then, that despite claims by drug companies that clinical tests show the contrary, people would be better off not taking anti-seasickness medications. 

Which one of the following, if true, would most weaken the conclusion above? 

(A) Given rough enough weather, most ferry passengers will have some symptoms of seasickness.

(B) The clinical tests reported by the drug companies were conducted by the drug companies’ staffs. 

(C) People who do not take anti-seasickness medication are just as likely to respond to a survey on seasickness as people who do. 

(D) The seasickness symptoms of the people who took anti-seasickness medication would have been more severe had they not taken the medication. 

(E) People who have spent money on anti-seasickness medication are less likely to admit symptoms of seasickness than those who have not. 
 

logic book style：

Premise1：A survey was recently conducted among ferry passengers on the North Sea.

Premise2：Among the results was this: more of those who had taken anti-seasickness medication before their trip reported symptoms of seasickness than those who had not taken such medication.

Conclusion：It is clear, then, that despite claims by drug companies that clinical tests show the contrary, people would be better off not taking anti-seasickness medications. 

中文對照：

前提一：今天要說一個對乘客做調查的故事

前提二：有吃藥的還會暈船

結論：老兄您就別吃了（這結論裡面有個讓步轉折，我認為沒必要提出來當作另外的前提，因為這樣可以省時間，而且主要認為他的角色是做強調，並沒有在邏輯上有層次上的變更）

連貫性（coherence）：暈船VS.吃藥

weaken這個削弱的意思就是想辦法將整個argument變成爛的argument，想辦法變成invalid argument，所以可以有以下質疑處，可以詢問前提是否為真，結論是否有反例出現，基本上這兩招吃遍所有加強跟削弱題。這個論辯在結論上的反例就是：不管怎樣你各位最好就是給我吃下去

選項：

(A) Given rough enough weather, most ferry passengers will have some symptoms of seasickness.

氣候，沒有吃不吃的邏輯存在，請刪除

(B) The clinical tests reported by the drug companies were conducted by the drug companies’ staffs. 

對轉折內的資訊內容作來源說明，這個攻能不對結論負責，只對那個despite負責，再刪

(C) People who do not take anti-seasickness medication are just as likely to respond to a survey on seasickness as people who do. 

有吃跟沒吃對調查結果都一樣，阿這不就已經違背前提二了，前提二是調查結果你可以去遲疑他沒錯，也符合weaken的做題方式，你可能說就是因為本來就會暈船，所以才會吃藥，然後再這麼多會暈船的人當中，吃藥沒反應的還是會有，所以吃藥無效，這個對前提的質疑是沒錯的，但是為什麼他不能成為正確選項來削弱原文呢？因為，角色扮演問題，前提二前面有信號字：Among the results was this，這表示冒號後面的東西是既定『事實』，不能去對事實作質疑，沒意義，存在的東西就是存在了。

(D) The seasickness symptoms of the people who took anti-seasickness medication would have been more severe had they not taken the medication. 

這是if假設法的倒裝後面是：if they had not taken the medication.這就表示有病就要吃藥啊，到最後結論就是：吃進去吧，區區含笑半步癲有啥了不起的，大不了不笑不走路。跟原題結論相反。

選（Ｄ）

補充：

(E) People who have spent money on anti-seasickness medication are less likely to admit symptoms of seasickness than those who have not. 

這題有個語病，花＄＄在這藥上面等於要吃它嗎，不一定吧，所以不能對號入座，會形成邏輯跳耀的缺陷，再來假設不幸誤會成花錢買藥就一定要吃下去，那回到選項內容，說到藥效不好，他在邏輯層面上是加強結論的，勸你別吃藥，所以還是要排除選項。

我認為GRE的錯誤選項是定義上的問題，角色扮演上的錯誤，而不是翻譯內容上的瑕疵讓他產生錯誤，所以要從定義著手才是王道，以上個人筆記希望有幫助到大家，文章內容中英夾雜請見諒，有誤再請指教!!