熱血背包客莊ㄟ

The difficulty with the proposed high-speed train line is that a used plane can be bought for one-third the price of the train line, and the plane, which is just as fast, can fly anywhere. The train would be a fixed linear sustem, and we live in a world that is spreading out in all directions and in which consumers choose the free-wheel systems (cars, buses, aircraft), which do not have fixed routes. Thus a sufficient market for the train will not exist.

Which of the following, if true, most severely weakens the argument presented above?
 

A.Cars, buses, and planes require the efforts of drivers and pilots to guide them, whereas the train will be guided mechanically.

B.Cars and buses are not nearly as fast as the high-speed train will be.

C.Planes are not a free-wheel system because they can fly only between airports, which are less convenient for consumers than the high-speed train’s stations would be.

D.The high-speed train line cannot use currently underutilized train stations in large cities.

E.For long trips, most people prefer to fly rather than to take ground-level transportation.

直接從Argument定義著手，如果想知道更詳細的內容，出門左轉往前幾篇參考，這裡就不多贅述了，首先把它變成一個在批判性思維當中的一個術語就是（logic book style）就是把每一句話所扮演的角色給標定清楚

premise1: The difficulty with the proposed high-speed train line is that a used plane can be bought for one-third the price of the train line

premise2: and the plane, which is just as fast, can fly anywhere.

premise3: The train would be a fixed linear sustem,

premise4: and we live in a world that is spreading out in all directions and in which consumers choose the free-wheel systems (cars, buses, aircraft), which do not have fixed routes.

conclusion: Thus a sufficient market for the train will not exist.

這裡為了讓分係更為詳細才細分成四組前提，以邏輯詞and當分界，但是考試因為時間限制盡量以單句為一個組別

前提一：T= 3P，三倍價

前提二：雞快，隨意飛

前提三：Ｔ，固定點

前提四：我認為這組前提重要性不大，因為他在對FIX這個字做更詳細的定義，加強FIX的缺點，但你也不能少了他，如果少了前提四，就會變成由靠站（FIX）導出，火車沒必要存在，中間少描述到固定點的致命傷，有了一個描述致命傷（不方便）的出現才能導致消失，這樣邏輯上才會扎實。

然後針對題目問到的weakens the argument 做分析，waeken這個弱化，就是使得argument變成一個爛argument，而剛剛提到一個論辯就是數個前提加上一個結論，假設這當中四個前提可以被質疑，這就是弱化整個論辯，或是另一個呈現方式：當我的論辯當中結論的部分是可以找到一個反例，那我就達成弱化的目的了，因此侍者用這兩個方法去找答案，前提一：價錢是事實三倍就是三倍，不可能改變，所以不理會，他不會是解題關鍵。前提二：雞快要去麥當勞買，選項不提供，這也是事實，但後面點出了anywhere，這個就可以質疑了，再加上前提四：高鐵是要固定點下車的，這裡剛好出現對立點，這個轉折往往都是考試出題點，為什麼anywhere可以被質疑呢？，你就隨便舉個例子就好了啊，只要能夠使得前提不成立，一個反力就夠了，例如說我要轉機好幾次飛機才能到智利，然後再轉機到復活節島看dum-dum gave me gum-gum，這樣就一個反例出來，要去任何地方是可以拉，但是我要換好幾次機，因為不可能飛機停大馬路上，或是有些地方不給直飛，可惜復活節島準備封閉了，超可惜。

那這樣就由fix VS. anywhere出來找答案，找到

C.Planes are not a free-wheel system because they can fly only between airports, which are less convenient for consumers than the high-speed train’s stations would be.

就選（Ｃ）了，

補充：

因為是由argument(論辯)的定義出發去解題的，並不是用看個選項看看哪個適合，才選出答案的，假設跟著選項一個一個看會發現每個選項都很像是命中註定的那個他，可是分數就這麼輕輕的我走了

A.Cars, buses, and planes require the efforts of drivers and pilots to guide them, whereas the train will be guided mechanically.

這錯的很離譜，完全前提跟結論都沒有連接點，這個在比較傳統產業VS.工業4.0，手排對上自排，絕對不選，這個並不具有文章連貫性（coherence）。

B.Cars and buses are not nearly as fast as the high-speed train will be.

講的是事實沒錯啊，不過你帶入之後沒辦法讓高鐵起死回生啊，（第二原則，取結論句的反例）中間是說下車位置固定而我們人類到處跑，跟快慢無關，而且前提二的速度議題是事實，對事實去做爭辯沒意義，並不會影響整個論辯，灰掐易耕吿掐讚，問誒罵扣漸漸昂，掐湯瀨心愛誒狼，幾無欺泰壓呀忙～謀情誒拉八蝦音蝦蝦耽～～～

D.The high-speed train line cannot use currently underutilized train stations in large cities.

前提跟結論都沒有出現『相容性』問題，不具有文章連貫性（coherence），而且這個選項也支持『加強』了the train will not exist

E.For long trips, most people prefer to fly rather than to take ground-level transportation.

個人喜好也不在前提跟結論規範中，不具連貫性。而且這個剛好相反，ＥＴＳ專門出這種考題來騙剛好腦子經歷恍神症狀的考生，題目問到weaken，但這個選項應該是支持『加強』（support）

在連貫性跟argument的定義下作題，就不易陷入翻譯找答案的陷阱中了。以上個人筆記希望有幫助到大家，有誤再請指教!!