熱血背包客莊ㄟ

The Environmental Protection Agency must respond to the hazard to children's health posed by exposure to asbestos fibers released in the air in school classrooms. Since it is impossible to close school buildings, the best plan would be to initiate programs that mandate the immediate removal of asbestos from all the school buildings that are found to contain asbestos, regardless of whether or not the buildings are in use.

Which of the following, if true, is the strongest reason for the Environmental Protection Agency not to follow the plan outlined above?

(A) The techniques available for removing asbestos often increase the level of airborne asbestos.

(B) Schools are places where asbestos is especially likely to be released into the air by the action of the occupants.

(C) Children exposed to airborne asbestos run a greater risk of developing cancer than do adults exposed to airborne asbestos.

(D) The cost of removing asbestos varies from school to school, depending on accessibility and the quantity of asbestos to be removed.

(E) It is impossible to determine with any degree of certainty if and when construction materials that contain asbestos will break down and release asbestos fibers into the air.

logic book style

Premise1：The Environmental Protection Agency must respond to the hazard to children's health posed by exposure to asbestos fibers released in the air in school classrooms

Premise2：Since it is impossible to close school buildings

Premise3：regardless of whether or not the buildings are in use.

Conclusion：the best plan would be to initiate programs that mandate the immediate removal of asbestos from all the school buildings that are found to contain asbestos

中文對照：

前提一：ＡＦ在空氣中在室內的健康危機

前提二：不可能封閉教室

前提三：不管有無使用（這是結論句尾巴拉出來的一個前提，他其實是不完整子句形容詞帶頭的關係代名詞前方省略了which is ）

結論：要開始執行計畫

連貫性（coherence）：ＡＦ傷身要拆掉

題目問到not to follow the plan，這個計畫就是結論所說的計畫，這就是要找一個選項加入之後是可以完全反駁計畫的執行動機的，這詞換湯不換藥就是要問weaken這個削弱的意思就是想辦法將整個argument變成爛的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。而題目直接限定在對結論（the best plan）質疑，那這樣只要針對結論去做質疑答案就可以找到了。去對結論質疑，原本文章說為了防止ＡＦ所以要拆，就會變成防止ＡＦ『一定要拆嗎？』然後第二招再下一個反例，『不要』拆才是最好的計畫，假設你的質疑或是反例被你找到，那這選項就是答案了

選項：

(A) The techniques available for removing asbestos often increase the level of airborne asbestos.

移除ＡＦ的技術增加了空氣傳播，這就完全打槍結論了啊，在說你要拆是可以啊，不過拆的過程會增加ＡＦ在空氣傳播的機會，那這計劃該拆還是不拆

選（Ａ）
 

(B) Schools are places where asbestos is especially likely to be released into the air by the action of the occupants.

這選項跑去對小屁孩的不良行進做出ＡＦ傷身的解釋，這有人生攻擊的成分在，因為文章根本沒有提到小孩會手賤挖石棉瓦，或是怎樣的人為因素使得ＡＦ散到空氣中，這不具連貫性，那如果不在連貫性裡頭卻出現這種句子那就違反批判性思維當中的『 Ad hominem fallacy 』

(C) Children exposed to airborne asbestos run a greater risk of developing cancer than do adults exposed to airborne asbestos.

小孩有更大的危險，這個絕對是『加強』這個結論的前題，然後合理的位置應該為前提一和前提二之間加上去，然後得到結論，應該盡快拆

(D) The cost of removing asbestos varies from school to school, depending on accessibility and the quantity of asbestos to be removed.

看到這個美式賣場的弟弟就別選了，他當主詞會違反連貫性啊。因為計畫說要趕快拆是基於對於小孩健康的前提，而不是金錢的前提。

(E) It is impossible to determine with any degree of certainty if and when construction materials that contain asbestos will break down and release asbestos fibers into the air.

這在對前提一作質疑，可以直接刪了，因為題目要去質疑結論。理由二：在質疑前提之前要去考慮到這個前提是不是事實，如果是事實就不能去質疑，質疑就會造成你在強詞奪理，在這個前提一當中的句式：The Environmental Protection Agency must respond to the hazard to children's health posed by exposure to asbestos fibers released in the air in school classrooms，可以分成三部分，某單位要回應某件事情，那個回應就是對於後方的事件變成事實的重要關鍵，就是有這個東西出現才要去回應啊，我先不管後面紫色部分講的是對還是錯，被逼出來做回應就表示後面的東西是存在的，東西存在與否就是事實的定義

補充：

在歸納法當中他們都會遵照一準則就是：uniformity of nature,例如說太陽從以前到現在都是從東邊升起，所以你下個結論：明天太陽會從東邊升起，這個結論就是由自然不變定律來的，這是所有歸納法的依據，而這樣的操作下衍生出四種歸納法的種類，那回歸文章的這句話，他用The Environmental Protection Agency就是利用其中的Arguments from authority，因為這個自然法則會成立是因為這個機構的關係，這就好比愛因斯坦說光速恆定，這辯論的可信度就很高了，因為他在這領域的地位，那你可能會說愛因斯坦在物理領域成就高大，可是總有出錯的時候吧，這存在這一種可能性，而這就是歸納法的特色，只會有最可能的結果，不會有百分之百的結果，所以我才會認為The Environmental Protection Agency不是廢話，他有存在的必要性，它作為一個歸納法辯論的信號字。

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!!