熱血背包客莊ㄟ

Despite improvements in treatment for asthma, the death rate from this disease has doubled during the past decade from its previous rate. Two possible explanations for this increase have been offered. First, the recording of deaths due to asthma has become more widespread and accurate in the past decade than it had been previously. Second,there has been an increase in urban pollution. However, since the rate of deaths due to asthma has increased dramatically even in cities with long-standing, comprehensive medical records and with little or no urban pollution, one must instead conclude that the cause of increased deaths is the use of bronchial inhalers by asthma sufferers to relieve their symptoms.

1. Each of the following, if true,provides support to the argument EXCEPT:

A. Urban populations have doubled in the past decade.

B. Records of asthma deaths are as accurate for the past twenty years as for the past ten years.

C. Evidence suggests that inhalers make the lungs more sensitive to irritation by airborne pollen.

D. By temporarily relieving the symptoms of asthma, inhalers encourage sufferers toavoid more beneficial measures.

E. Ten years ago bronchial inhalers were not available as an asthma treatment.

2.Which one of the following is an assumptionon which the argument depends?

A. Urban pollution has not doubled in the past decade.

B. Doctors and patients generally ignore the role of allergies in asthma.

C. Bronchial inhalers are unsafe, even when used according to the recommended instructions.

D. The use of bronchial inhalers aggravates other diseases that frequently occur among asthma sufferers and that often lead to fatal outcomes even when the asthma itself does not.

E. Increased urban pollution, improved recording of asthma deaths, and the used of asthma deaths, and the use of bronchial inhalers are the only possible explanations ofthe increased death rate due to asthma.

logic book style：

Premise1：Despite improvements in treatment for asthma, the death rate from this disease has doubled during the past decade from its previous rate

Premise2：First, the recording of deaths due to asthma has become more widespread and accurate in the past decade than it had been previously.

Premise3：Second,there has been an increase in urban pollution.

Premise4：However, since the rate of deaths due to asthma has increased dramatically even in cities with long-standing, comprehensive medical records and with little or no urban pollution

Conclusion：one must instead conclude that the cause of increased deaths is the use of bronchial inhalers by asthma sufferers to relieve their symptoms.

中文對照：

前提一：Ａ病死亡加倍

前提二：理由一，紀錄更為廣又精

前提三：理由二，城市污染＋

前提四：但是，在無污染區，及完善紀錄區，死亡一樣增加（有轉折表示前兩個理由白講了，作者直接自我否定掉了）

結論：死亡增加就是因為ＢＩ（by後面的補充說明就別看了，看到sufferers就等於不好）

連貫性（coherence）：Ａ病致死率增加因素

補充：前提二和三前方有一句話Two possible explanations for this increase have been offered＝because，沒有內容只是邏輯轉換詞，所以不納入前提

第一題：

考『非』支持，所以代表只要不能對前提或是結論做加強補充描述的話，這個選項就是答案了

A. Urban populations have doubled in the past decade.

都沒辦法對以上前提跟結論配對進而補充說明，就連關鍵字populations人口加倍都沒提過，這就是表示在增加另外一個前提，這樣會改變整個論辯（argument）支持不是增加內容，而是對原有內容做正面解釋。增加前提就扭曲原文了，至於是不是『非支持即削弱』，這就不好說了，還要看有無連貫性，這裡連節點用的是死因增加因素，選項說人口加倍，那是『量』的概念，可連貫上是『率』的概念，所以你要說他是weaken選項，我覺得有待商榷，更簡單來說就是，前提四已經打槍跟（Ａ）相反了，選（Ａ）

B. Records of asthma deaths are as accurate for the past twenty years as for the past ten years.

對前提二和四做加強說明，隨著時間改變紀錄沒有改變，沒有改變就不能說死亡率的增加跟他有關

C. Evidence suggests that inhalers make the lungs more sensitive to irritation by airborne pollen.

對結論做補充，支持ＢＩ就是兇手，這裡提到sensitive，irritation都是負面字，這是對應剛剛結論後方故意忽略不看的部分

D. By temporarily relieving the symptoms of asthma, inhalers encourage sufferers to avoid more beneficial measures.

避免好處，就是沒有好事，不能直接等價成遇到壞事，因為這樣會『忽略掉沒有發生什麼事』，這也是支持結論也是對應剛剛結論後方故意忽略不看的部分，ＢＩ就是兇手，用了他沒好事。

E. Ten years ago bronchial inhalers were not available as an asthma treatment.

這是對節前半部的直持，死亡加倍是ＢＩ造成的，所以沒有ＢＩ就不會有死亡加倍的結果，這是典型的Modus tollens:『If P then Q, not Q therefore not P. 』只會在演繹法出現，deductive argument，演繹法有個特徵就是絕對正確跟絕對錯誤，這裡符合公式的內容，就是表示絕對正確

第二題：

看到assumption可以開心一下，因為只要找出論辯中的預設立場，即可挑出選項了，所以關鍵字多半或落在前提裡頭，然後加上去之後這個選項的某關鍵字會再跟結論的某關鍵字連結，白話一點就是assumption把前提和結論的共價鍵找出，所以假設題就是必須找連貫性，說白了就是一個『讀選項抓關鍵字，去對應論辯當中的結論並且可以成功』的考題。

文章提到兩個主因，然後用however打槍這兩個主因，然後再補上第三個因素，表示前提二跟前提三的內容可以下去領便當了，既然收工就不會再出現，所以預設立場就是那個第三因素了，你沒介紹他不好在哪裡怎麼可以就斬釘截鐵說他是兇手，很沒說服力。

A. Urban pollution has not doubled in the past decade.

這個關鍵字都沒出現，離題了bronchial inhalers沒看到

B. Doctors and patients generally ignore the role of allergies in asthma.

這個也沒出現連貫性，bronchial inhalers呢？？你如果說他是對的話，你這個預設立場前面還要有個預設立場才行，就是要保證ＢＩ會產生過敏，而且還要說是致死性的過敏。

C. Bronchial inhalers are unsafe, even when used according to the recommended instructions.

ＢＩ不安全，不安全不一定會死啊，這又表示預設立場中還再加一個預設立場，作者認為ＢＩ非常不安全，這個不安全會致命的，這種含糊待過的認為不安全等於死亡的假象來自於The fallacy of ambiguity

D. The use of bronchial inhalers aggravates other diseases that frequently occur among asthma sufferers and that often lead to fatal outcomes even when the asthma itself does not.

這題中招了，因為我本來以為把預設立場中的預設立場找出來了lead to fatal outcomes，不過就文法結構來說，這是關係代名詞裡面的內容，修飾other diseases用的不是主幹，所以文法上可以直接排出這選項，他的致命性不是ＢＩ造成的而是其他疾病，所以把連貫性考量進去，ＢＩ導致疾病，但是結論是ＢＩ致命，主幹中間還是少了橋樑。

第二：如果就內容上他是否可以當成預設立場，加入後能夠成為滿足結論的前提，選項說道ＢＩ有個副作用（疾病）的產生，這個副作用是伴隨這笑喘發生的，而且（其他疾病）副作用會致命，他不能保證結論可以成功成立，因為頻率副詞frequently，跟often本身就有不確定性，如果沒有發生，就不會有接下來一連串的連鎖反應（ＢＩ→ 可能其他疾病→通常致命）這個不能保證結論的描述是永遠正確，也就是沒有truth preserving。而且這個選項成立的話沒辦法解釋我幹媽要想前提二到前提四的內容，這題再出現一次我可能還是會上當，沒往下看（Ｅ）實在是虧大了。

E. Increased urban pollution, improved recording of asthma deaths, and the used of asthma deaths, and the use of bronchial inhalers are the only possible explanations ofthe increased death rate due to asthma.

這個理由很乾脆，告訴你他沒有不好拉，只是說我就只有三個房間給你睡，有兩個已經被預訂了，就這麼一個空房，要住不住隨便你，提供三個選項，兩個已經被打槍了，你也只剩ＢＩ可以選了，這是一個結構叫Disjunctive syllogism: 『P or Q, not P therefore Q 』這個出來也是絕對唯一性的演繹法（deductive arguments）這也說明前提二～四的重要性，因為他在限定範圍，假設注意到這個文章是在劃定界線的話這個選項裡當秒殺。

所以也只能選（Ｅ）

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，之前補習遇到一個老師一直在說這選項文中未提到，阿這不是廢話嗎，就是沒提到才可以當選項考你啊，提到了不就變連連看了，浪費錢在那邊聽你講選項（Ａ）文中沒有講到就跳下一個，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!!