[問題]GWD25-Q22.

[elsachang]

GWD25-Q22.
Springfield Fire Commissioner: the vast majority of false fire alarms are prank calls made anonymously from fire alarm boxes on street corners. Since virtually everyone has access to a private telephone,
these alarm boxes have outlived their usefulness. Therefore, we propose to remove the boxes. Removing the boxes will reduce the number of prank calls without hampering people’s ability to report a fire.

Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the claim that the proposal, if carried out, will have the announced effect?

A.The fire department traces all alarm calls made from private telephones and records where they came from.
B.Maintaining the fire alarm boxes costs Springfield approximately five million dollars annually.
C.A telephone call can provide the fire department with more information about the nature and size of a fire than can an alarm placed from an alarm box.
D.Responding to false alarms significantly reduces the fire department’s capacity for responding to fires.
E.On any given day, a significant percentage of the public telephones in Springfield are out of service.


感覺A和C都不錯, 而我最後選了A, 可答案給C
為什麼A不行阿?

[A級垂耳兔]

因為仍未證明without hampering people’s ability to report a fire

[bonus]

要支持 「without hampering people's ability to report a fire」，就要說明用 private phone 可以達到 alarm box 一樣的效果。
A為什麼不對：原文已經說了，絕大多數的假信息都是從街上的fire alarm來的，取消街道上的fire alarm，假消息自然會減少。 那麼，A所說的，會追蹤來電話的人，即便起到威懾作用，對於虛假信息的減少也沒有作用。（因為畢竟無聊到用private calll來報假消息的人還是少數）

[keane0727]

我選A
Fire Commissioner的論証是除去alarm box會減少prank calls的次數；但是沒有說明為什麼喜歡惡作劇的人不會改用電話來作prank call所以選A。
C無法証明prank call會減少
個人覺得"without hampering peoples' ability to report a fire"不是邏輯的重心；因為因為題目已有說everone has an access to private phone, 至於private phone可以說明更多細節已超出討論的範圍了

[takuan]

個人覺得選項c沒有錯，因為既然火勢和火災的情況都可以清楚描述，那麼消防員就比較有機會判斷這是不是假的警報，而且不會延誤滅火時機

相對於A選項，A選項只能知道哪裡有起火點，還有這是誰呼叫的，可是沒辦法第一時間就確定"是不是"真有火災發生，那麼和警報箱的效果是一樣的

[keane0727]

個人覺得選項c沒有錯，因為既然火勢和火災的情況都可以清楚描述，那麼消防員就比較有機會判斷這是不是假的警報，而且不會延誤滅火時機

相對於A選項，A選項只能知道哪裡有起火點，還有這是誰呼叫的，可是沒辦法第一時間就確定"是不是"真有火災發生，那麼和警報箱的效果是一樣的

判斷和不延誤並不在論証的範圍內。要論証的是prank call會不會減少。在所有的prank call都被正確判定下，prank calls次數還是可能大副增加


A選項好在它指出phone calls 和alarm最大的差異即phone call可以找出prank calls的來源達到嚇阻之效果所以可以減少prank calls的次數

[gan4sula]

個人覺得選項c沒有錯，因為既然火勢和火災的情況都可以清楚描述，那麼消防員就比較有機會判斷這是不是假的警報，而且不會延誤滅火時機

相對於A選項，A選項只能知道哪裡有起火點，還有這是誰呼叫的，可是沒辦法第一時間就確定"是不是"真有火災發生，那麼和警報箱的效果是一樣的

判斷和不延誤並不在論証的範圍內。要論証的是prank call會不會減少。在所有的prank call都被正確判定下，prank calls次數還是可能大副增加


A選項好在它指出phone calls 和alarm最大的差異即phone call可以找出prank calls的來源達到嚇阻之效果所以可以減少prank calls的次數

A, it only says FD traces calls, which doesnt necessary mean they would punish prank callers, or stop prank callers from calling
this neither have effect on people's ability to report a fire

C, at least FD can obtain extra info. that alarm box cant give. regardless whether calls are false,

[dibert8]

(A) report (fire) 主要不是 fire department 該做的事,所以和 fire department 無關. trace calls 和 ability to report 也沒有關聯.

[rino]

我選D耶，回應錯誤警告會嚴重降低消防隊回應火災的能力

是因為結論是在討論是否會影響到民眾回報火災的能力

所以D選項無關嗎？

[阿琪]

是滴！
結論針對"民眾回報火災的能力是否受影響來探討"

所以 (d)"降低消防隊回應火災的能力" 跟 "民眾回報火災的能力" 沒辦法達到支持的做用

(c)則清楚的針對 "回報火災的能力是否受影響來探討" (provide the fire department with more information about the nature and size of a fire ) 來達到支持的作用

[chencraig0227]

我支持(A)

文章從一開始就是在說惡作劇電話導致的決策，因此關鍵句在減少惡作劇的次數。 而A說可以追蹤誰打電話，我認為就是直接地說可以減少惡作劇。
這一題就是看你覺得判斷句在"減少惡作劇電話?"還是"不影響通報能力"

[DoDoPrac]

我支持(C)

個人認為文中第一句應是事實: the vast majority of false fire alarms are prank calls made anonymously from fire alarm boxes on street corners.
本題的支持答案我認為是搭橋法(gap):
本題問題:Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the claim that the proposal, if carried out, will have the announced effect?
暗示if true顯示有gap,
另外,本題問題最後說的that the proposal, if carried out, will have the announced effect
已經先說明第一句事實會成立,也就是呼應結論"Removing the boxes will reduce the number of prank calls without hampering people’s ability to report a fire"
其中的前半部: will reduce the number of prank calls

所以答案應該是選擇能提供後半部"without hampering people’s ability to report a fire"的gap內容
(C) 說明了顯示了民眾有能力report a fire(甚至是更detail的資訊)
是很好的gap答案

(A) 則沒辦法提供後半部所需的資訊

[yuyutseng]

GWD25-Q22.
Springfield Fire Commissioner: the vast majority of false fire alarms are prank calls made anonymously from fire alarm boxes on street corners. Since virtually everyone has access to a private telephone,
these alarm boxes have outlived their usefulness. Therefore, we propose to remove the boxes. Removing the boxes will reduce the number of prank calls without hampering people’s ability to report a fire.

Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the claim that the proposal, if carried out, will have the announced effect?

A.The fire department traces all alarm calls made from private telephones and records where they came from.
B.Maintaining the fire alarm boxes costs Springfield approximately five million dollars annually.
C.A telephone call can provide the fire department with more information about the nature and size of a fire than can an alarm placed from an alarm box.
D.Responding to false alarms significantly reduces the fire department’s capacity for responding to fires.
E.On any given day, a significant percentage of the public telephones in Springfield are out of service.


感覺A和C都不錯, 而我最後選了A, 可答案給C
為什麼A不行阿?

這一題在新版的OG12裡面有題, OG 內給的答案是(A), OG 裡面的解釋摘錄於下, 有興趣的人可以回去看詳情
Which option most strongly support the claim that removing the alarm boxes will reduce the number of prank calls without hampering people's ability to report a fire ?
The argument already provides some evidence that
(1) removing the bxes will reduce prank calls
(2) doing so will not hamper people's ability to report fires
The option which support the arguments should support (1) or (2) or both.

(A) Correct.
(B) This may provide a reason for supporting the proposal, but it provides no support for either (1) or (2)
(C) This indicates that it is better to receive fire calls from etelepones than from alarm boxes - other things being equal - but that support s neither (1) nore (2). There is stil the possibility that the only person aware that a fire has started is near an alarm box but lacks access to a telephone.
(D) This merely indicates that it would be good if the proposal had the intended effects.
(E) This actually weakens supports for (2).
(B) This may