GWD7-Q38

由 **QQcandy** » 2004-09-15 16:25

Q38:
Journalist: Well-known businessman Arnold Bergeron has long been popular in the state, and he has often talked about running for governor, but he has never run. However, we have just learned that Bergeron has fulfilled the financial disclosure requirement for candidacy by submitting a detailed list of his current financial holdings to the election commission. So, it is very likely that Bergeron will be a candidate for governor this year.

The answer to which of the following questions would be most useful in evaluating the journalist’s argument?

A. Has anybody else who has fulfilled the financial disclosure requirement for the upcoming election reported greater financial holdings than Bergeron?

B. Is submitting a list of holdings the only way to fulfill the election commission’s financial disclosure requirements?

C. Did the information recently obtained by the journalists come directly from the election commission?

D. Have Bergeron’s financial holdings increased in value in recent years?

E. Had Bergeron also fulfilled the financial disclosure requirements for candidacy before any previous gubernatorial elections?

There are two answer, B and E. And I choose E. How about you guys ???

由 **Grace** » 2004-09-15 19:19

I chose B... I ruled out answer E because if the answer is "YES", then it is strange
that why Bergeron did not become a candicate. Hence, whether he has fullfilled finanacial disclosure requirements for any previous eletions does not have diret link to the possiblity whether he will be a candidate this year.

由 **QQcandy** » 2004-09-15 21:49

Grace \$m[1]:I chose B... I ruled out answer E because if the answer is "YES", then it is strange
that why Bergeron did not become a candicate. Hence, whether he has fullfilled finanacial disclosure requirements for any previous eletions does not have diret link to the possiblity whether he will be a candidate this year.

Hmm...you persuaded me..I agreed with you :D

由訪客 » 2004-09-15 23:01

We had the same kind of question before...
http://www.formosamba.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?t=327
E is a weakened option, because it said Bergeron ever did it but he still didn't run for the election.

由 **QQcandy** » 2004-09-15 23:37

mikelee \$m[1]:We had the same kind of question before...
http://www.formosamba.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?t=327
E is a weakened option, because it said Bergeron ever did it but he still didn't run for the election.

:-$ you know, Mike...i have used the skill you taught me before ....but the key point that Grace told me didn't come to my mind 8-)

so frustrated :^)

my brain is not working .........

由魚 » 2004-09-16 00:38

QQcandy \$m[1]:
mikelee \$m[1]:We had the same kind of question before...
http://www.formosamba.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?t=327
E is a weakened option, because it said Bergeron ever did it but he still didn't run for the election.

:-$ you know, Mike...i have used the skill you taught me before ....but the key point that Grace told me didn't come to my mind

so frustrated my brain is not working .........

QQ .....小建議 ,你參考
以後要不要把你選該答案的原因寫出來 ....
我想,除了知道正確答案為何正確
知道自己為何會掉入陷阱裡也很重要耶 :D
你參考一下唄 (*)

由 **QQcandy** » 2004-09-17 00:28

(*) good idea...fish MM... (H) ({)

由 **illuna** » 2004-09-17 00:54

我深深的不能同意答案是B :(

因為題目問的是要我們去評估該記者的推論「B先生今年會參選」....

但是答案B的意思卻是申報所持有的財產是不是符合選委會要求申報財產唯一的方法

答案E最好....因為題目中已經說明 he has never run ..... 那如果B先生在過去也有過向選委會申報財產的紀錄卻從未參選.....則證明記者的推論有誤（這次可能祇是空包彈而已）......請大家指教....

由 **illuna** » 2004-09-17 09:02

昨天晚上趕著睡覺所以怕寫的不清不楚.....在這邊再提一個例子給大家參考參考.....

我們今年總統大選的時候也有不是兩黨候選人之外的其他組候選人前來參選.....可是在他們繳交了保證金之後通常因為跨不過連署人門檻而與參選資格不符......因此我們可以憑著「繳交保證金就推論該組候選人有參選」或是「領取參選報名表就可以推論有參選」或是「向選委會登記參選就可以推論參選」嗎?

同樣的情形......
本題記者只憑著B桑向選委會申報財產就推論說B桑今年要參選...個人認為：若要判斷B桑是否真的要參選只要憑著「過去是否曾向選委會申報財產？」這個問題的答案加上「從未參選過」這個事實（題目中說明）.....就可以判斷記者的推論是否合理.......

請大家指教......

由魚 » 2004-09-17 16:49

illuna \$m[1]:昨天晚上趕著睡覺所以怕寫的不清不楚.....在這邊再提一個例子給大家參考參考.....

我們今年總統大選的時候也有不是兩黨候選人之外的其他組候選人前來參選.....可是在他們繳交了保證金之後通常因為跨不過連署人門檻而與參選資格不符......因此我們可以憑著「繳交保證金就推論該組候選人有參選」或是「領取參選報名表就可以推論有參選」或是「向選委會登記參選就可以推論參選」嗎?

同樣的情形......
本題記者只憑著B桑向選委會申報財產就推論說B桑今年要參選...個人認為：若要判斷B桑是否真的要參選只要憑著「過去是否曾向選委會申報財產？」這個問題的答案加上「從未參選過」這個事實（題目中說明）.....就可以判斷記者的推論是否合理.......

請大家指教......

:-S 好複雜喔橘子哥你要參選喔?

由 **illuna** » 2004-09-17 22:50

你會投我一票嗎?? :-$

重點是我這樣解到底對不對啦...... (H)

由 **Grace** » 2004-09-18 00:31

你這樣解釋坦白說也說的過去....
但是想想答案B submitting a list of holdings 不是 fulfill the election commission’s financial disclosure requirements 的唯一方法的話, 那麼他submit a list holdings 的用意就不會只是要參選..不知道這樣的解釋是否說的過去阿...

由 **flyfrog** » 2004-09-18 00:48

我覺得是B耶

我的解讀是
題目只要求問出一句可以揭露出Arnold到底要否參選的關鍵句

B是就事實來解讀Arnold要不要參選
因Arnold揭露已是事實, 如果是----->參選機會極大

E變成在問Arnold是不是每次有選舉他就會自己揭露財產一次
就算答案得到YES, 頂多只能證明這是他的習慣
要否參選......不知道

請指教 :P

由訪客 » 2004-09-18 09:22

flyfrog \$m[1]:我覺得是B耶

我的解讀是
題目只要求問出一句可以揭露出Arnold到底要否參選的關鍵句

B是就事實來解讀Arnold要不要參選
因Arnold揭露已是事實, 如果是----->參選機會極大

E變成在問Arnold是不是每次有選舉他就會自己揭露財產一次
就算答案得到YES, 頂多只能證明這是他的習慣
要否參選......不知道

請指教 :P

Good job 8-|

由 **illuna** » 2004-09-18 16:34

Grace \$m[1]:你這樣解釋坦白說也說的過去....
但是想想答案B submitting a list of holdings 不是 fulfill the election commission’s financial disclosure requirements 的唯一方法的話, 那麼他submit a list holdings 的用意就不會只是要參選..不知道這樣的解釋是否說的過去阿...

題目的重心現在是要我們判斷記者的推論是否能成立對吧??

我試著循著你們的思路解一下.....

答案B如果yes....那說明了submitting a list of holdings 是 fulfill the election commission's financial disclosure requirements 的唯一方法....所以B桑作財產申報這個動作就代表一定會參選對吧??

那答案B如果否定...據Grace的意思說是B桑的用意是什麼就不知道了....

ok...我認為你們的問題在於....答案B是說「申報財產這個方法是唯一能符合選委會對於候選人財產曝光的要求」而不是說「申報財產這個方法是唯一符合選委會對於候選人是否參選的要求」......

難道你們把「the election commission's financial disclosure requirements」當成是「the election commission's requirements」 ? ^o)

我重申一下我個人覺得題目的考點：1.B桑從未參選2.他最近向選委會申報財產

請大家思考我的問題在哪....

GWD7-Q38

GWD7-Q38

誰在線上