熱血背包客莊ㄟ

As government agencies, faced with budget difficulties, reduce their funding for scientific research, a greater amount of such research is being funded by private foundations. This shift means that research projects likely to produce controversial results will almost certainly comprise a smaller proportion of all funded research projects, since private foundations, concerned about their public image, tend to avoid controversy.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

(A) Only research that is conducted without concern for the possibility of generating controversy is likely to produce scientifically valid results.

(B) Private foundations that fund scientific research projects usually recognize that controversial results from those projects cannot always be avoided.

(C) Scientists who conduct research projects funded by private foundations are unlikely to allow the concerns of the funding organizations to influence the manner in which they conduct the research.

(D) Many government agencies are more concerned about their public image than are most private foundations.

(E) Government agencies are more willing than are private foundations to fund research projects that are likely to produce controversial results.

logic book style：

Premise1：government agencies were faced with budget difficulties

Premise2：As government agencies reduce their funding for scientific research

Premise3：a greater amount of such research is being funded by private foundations

Premise4： since private foundations, concerned about their public image, tend to avoid controversy.

Conclusion：This shift means that research projects likely to produce controversial results will almost certainly comprise a smaller proportion of all funded research projects

中文對照：

前提一：政府官員沒錢（這是同位語抓處來的前提，看要不要獨立提出就看個人喜好，我是因為看到後面前提有個消剪預算的感覺，才獨立出來的，因為扯到錢，所以才不做實驗之後再繼續下去....）

前提二：因為減少補助研究了

前提三：所以私人供應（前提二跟三是綁一起的因為 『As』）

前提四：私人保護形象會避免爭議的研究

結論：有爭議研究資金就很少

連貫性（coherence）：錢錢

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。

進一步補充：不只要有連貫性，整個argument裡面的前提描述必須是對的，這樣才有辦法去證明結論的保真性truth preserving，所以要做的事情就是加了選項的東西進去當前提之後，原本的前提描述不能變成錯的，必須是對的，而且結論描述也必須是對的。

選項：

(A) Only research that is conducted without concern for the possibility of generating controversy is likely to produce scientifically valid results.

沒看到＄＄，直接刪除，這選項不用細看他已經違反連貫性了，無法證明結論的描述是對的。

(B) Private foundations that fund scientific research projects usually recognize that controversial results from those projects cannot always be avoided.

投顧認為爭議的研究成果是無法避免的，這個扭曲了前提四，原本應該是有爭議的內容大家會去避免投資。

(C) Scientists who conduct research projects funded by private foundations are unlikely to allow the concerns of the funding organizations to influence the manner in which they conduct the research.

這看到科學家就可以刪除了，科學家不允許投顧介入研究，就是給錢不管事，沒有連貫性，再說也沒辦法去連接結論：有爭議研究資金就很少

(D) Many government agencies are more concerned about their public image than are most private foundations.

政府官員更重視表面形象，這也沒看到錢錢，或是研究，看到政府官員這四個字心裡都會莫名火大。

(E) Government agencies are more willing than are private foundations to fund research projects that are likely to produce controversial results.

政府比較喜歡補助有爭議的研究，這個很ＯＫ，這邏輯是這樣的：整個爭議研究的投資市場有兩組籌碼，分別是政府跟私人集團，現在得到的結果是爭議型研究資金變少了，回看前提是因為私人不想淌這個滾水，並在再加上前提一的作用，政府沒錢才會導致出來的結論，所以證明市場當中只有一組大戶在操盤，因為私人興趣缺缺，所以只剩下政府的力道，但偏偏政府力道疲軟，因此整體走勢下降。假設政府也沒興趣的話，這個爭議型資金的流動方式從頭到尾都會很少，不會改變（smaller不會出現）。兩大咖都沒投錢了，散戶搞屁啊。選項不只有＄＄的連貫性，然後前提一和前提三都都有各自的關鍵點在選項中。

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!!