熱血背包客莊ㄟ

Like most other coastal towns in Norway, the town of Stavanger was quiet and peaceful until the early 1960's, when it became Norway's center for offshore oil exploration. Between then and now, violent crime and vandalism in Stavanger have greatly increased. Stavanager's social problems probably resulted from the oil boom, since violent crime and vandalism have remained low in coastal towns in Norway that have had no oil boom.

Which of the following most accurately describes the method of reasoning employed in the argument?

(A) Arguing that a circumstance is not a precondition for a phenomenon on the grounds that the phenomenon sometimes occurs where the circumstance is not present

(B) Arguing that a circumstance is a cause of a phenomenon on the grounds that the phenomenon has not occurred where the circumstance is not present

(C) Arguing that a particular thing cannot have caused a phenomenon because that thing was not present before the phenomenon occurred

(D) Attempting to establish a claim by arguing that the denial of the claim is inconsistent with the observed facts

(E) Attempting to establish that certain circumstances that would have had to occur for a particular explanation to be correct could not have occurred

解題：

看完選項幾乎變智障了，這種隱晦的概念名詞等等來用偉哥辭典查查定義吧，首先分類是免不了的

logical book style:

premise1: Like most other coastal towns in Norway, the town of Stavanger was quiet and peaceful until the early 1960's, when it became Norway's center for offshore oil exploration.

premise2: Between then and now, violent crime and vandalism in Stavanger have greatly increased.

premise3: since violent crime and vandalism have remained low in coastal towns in Norway that have had no oil boom.

conclusion: Stavanager's social problems probably resulted from the oil boom,

搞定之後題目問說用哪種方法推倒出來的，坦白說光看我只能說他是用『對比』的方式，然後關鍵點是油的發現，就是用有油VS.沒有油對比。但是這選項真他麻的鬼畫符啊，要搞清楚選項先來查查原始定義吧：

circumstance : a condition, fact, or event accompanying, conditioning, or determining another 
一個事實牽扯到另一件事，所以會有附屬關係，所以P1滿適合的，因為裡面有三個條件，第一： most other coastal towns in Norway, 第二： until the early 1960's, 第三：when it became Norway's center for offshore oil exploration，蠻像定義的condition或是fact就是主幹：the town of Stavanger was quiet and peaceful。好分析完畢，P1是circumstance，不是一台車

precondition : to put in a proper or desired condition or frame of mind especially in preparation，
要說是『預先』那只要是前提（P1~P3）都是預先事先，只要是結論之前的東西都是。

phenomenon : an object or aspect known through the senses rather than by thought or intuition，
直觀看見，不加個人評斷，所以結論的部分絕不可能，那就剩下P2,P3是了，

establish : to put into a favorable position，
這直接等於agree即可

explanation：to give the reason for or cause of
簡單來說他也是因果的『因』

接下來任務把選項的鬼話翻譯成人話

(A) Arguing that a circumstance is not a precondition for a phenomenon on the grounds that the phenomenon sometimes occurs where the circumstance is not present

爭論到Ｓ鎮發現了石油的情況不是Ｓ鎮暴力增量的先決條件，因為Ｓ鎮暴力增量有時候會是在一個Ｓ鎮本來很安靜跟其他沒有產油的小鎮一樣安靜但是『油沒有被發現』，我覺得這樣看還是有點像是鬼話，抓主幹化簡，那個on the ground後面的東西就算了，然後 for a phenomenon 是介係詞引導的修飾詞不理會，主幹就是：a circumstance is not a precondition，Ｓ鎮發現了石油不是Ｓ鎮暴力增量的先決條件，是啊是先決條件啊，不然為何他是前提呢，就是：有油→ 有暴力犯罪，恩～～～下面一位。

(B) Arguing that a circumstance is a cause of a phenomenon on the grounds that the phenomenon has not occurred where the circumstance is not present

a circumstance is a cause of a phenomenon因為有一個Ｓ鎮發現油情況，所以Ｓ鎮發現暴力增量，剛好對耶～～那繼續往下看，on the grounds直接就是等於based on，也表示因為，Ｓ鎮發現暴力增量沒有出現在一個沒有油的情況，哇好合啊～～剛好在講『有油VS.沒油』，就選（Ｂ）

補充：

(C) Arguing that a particular thing cannot have caused a phenomenon because that thing was not present before the phenomenon occurred

一個特別的事情，只有你有人家都沒有才會特別，而文章特別的就是其他鎮沒油，就只有Ｓ有油，然後他不能早成暴力增量，講反了，跳過。

(D) Attempting to establish a claim by arguing that the denial of the claim is inconsistent with the observed facts

the claim就是個人結論了，否認這個結論本身就不能發生，在一個argument裡面不能對前提或結論質疑，如果質疑的話這叫做『弱化』，根本題問的是不一樣的事情，不要理會。

(E) Attempting to establish that certain circumstances that would have had to occur for a particular explanation to be correct could not have occurred

這題爭議在這裡，網上就是（Ｂ）跟（Ｅ）再選，但用定義去看的話，主幹：certain circumstances我們可以表示成Ｓ鎮有油，後面是修飾詞，that would have had to occur for a particular explanation to be correct，為了一個特別的原因必須正確（因為Ｓ鎮暴力增量）而必須發生的Ｓ鎮有油的情況（前面描述已經因果相反了），後面動詞，not have occurred是不會發生的，修飾詞別理他，這個也不小心去反駁前提P1了，這樣這個argument就變成跟（Ｄ）一樣在討論弱化weaken，

補充：

我猜這裡（Ｂ）跟（Ｅ）會有衝突是因為定義關係吧，如果我的定義circumstances和phenomenon剛好相反的話，也就是phenomenon＝p1，circumstances＝P2,P3，誒～～反而（Ｅ）是對的了，那如果假設（Ｅ）是對的（Ａ）也可能會是對的，爭議這麼大應該是不會出，太有趣了，考太隱晦了，以上是我的認知，有意分享的大大們，Comment below!!!! Thank you～～～

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!!