With the approval of the provincial self-study examination office, 1998 added informal questions to the general logic self-study examination in the second half of the year. The content of the test questions involves all fields of natural and social daily thinking. However, this kind of test questions are neither professional knowledge in related fields nor professional knowledge in logic, but the examinee's daily logical thinking ability of understanding, judging, analyzing, synthesizing, reasoning and analogy of various information. The question type is multiple choice, and each question consists of a stem and five alternative answers. * * * 15 questions, 2 points for each question, a total of 30 points. Candidates can fully mobilize their daily logical thinking ability. As long as they know what it is, they can score correctly even if they don't know why. Obviously, the difficulty of the whole set of logic test questions is lower than in the past, and candidates will find it very useful for their future study. I believe this new change will be welcomed by relevant leaders and the majority of candidates.
Some foreign-funded enterprises in China also use this kind of test questions to assess employees' logical thinking ability. Many candidates feel strange and at a loss, and as a result, they are eliminated in the logic exam, not foreign languages and computers. This year, Jiangsu's logic self-examination has been changed, and there will be less and less embarrassment in applying for foreign-funded enterprises in the future.
For this kind of informal questions, although they are all multiple-choice questions, the questions asked from the stem can be divided into six categories:
First, the premise determines the conclusion type.
On the premise of the given conditions, candidates are required to choose their logical conclusions from five alternative answers.
Example 1. When a car driver drives illegally, the traffic police announced the decision to him: "Either detain his driver's license for three months or fine him 1000 yuan." The driver said, "I don't agree."
If the driver insists on his own opinion, which of the following is actually what he must agree to?
First, according to the penalty but not fine.
B, fine but don't press the button.
C, neither fines nor photos are deducted.
D, both fines and withholding photos.
E, if you can't do it, you must accept the fine and take pictures.
[Question analysis and answer] The decision of the traffic police is based on "P? Ask ",the driver doesn't agree, that is? (p？ Q). (p？ Q) is equivalent to (p∧q)∨ (? p∧？ Q) (see page 49 of the Self-study Guide to General Logic) According to the product sum analysis law on pages 50 and 224 of the guide, the above formula is equivalent to? (? p∧？ Q)→(p∧q). So, the answer to this question is E.
Example 2: A jewelry store was stolen, and four people, A, B, C and D, were arrested and tried. The confessions of the four people are as follows:
A: The criminal is C.
Ding is a criminal.
C: If I commit a crime, then Ding is the principal offender.
D: I didn't commit a crime.
Only one of the four confessions was false.
If the above conclusion is correct, which of the following is correct?
A, it is A who tells lies and B who commits crimes.
B, it is Ding who lies, and C and D who commit crimes.
C. B is the liar and C is the criminal.
D. C is the liar and C is the criminal.
E, it is A who tells lies and A who commits crimes.
[Question analysis and answer] The confessions of B and D are contradictory. According to the law of contradiction, one of them must be false. Only one of the four statements is false, so the statements of A and C are true. A's confession is true, and the actor is C. Together with C's confession, according to sufficient conditions, the antecedent is affirmed, and Ding is also an actor, which also leads to the conclusion that B, D are lying. So, the answer to this question is B.
Second, find the premise type from the conclusion
The stem gives a conclusion, asking candidates to find out the premise of this conclusion among five alternative answers.
If he wins Wu Scholarship, he must be a graduate student of Renmin University.
The above conclusions are the basis.
Under which of the following conditions?
A. Zhang Ying must be a graduate student of Renmin University.
B, won the Wu scholarship.
C. Wu, a graduate student of Renmin University, can get a scholarship.
Only graduate students from Renmin University can get Wu Scholarship.
E. Graduate students of Renmin University must obtain Wu Scholarship.
[Analysis and solution] The answer to this question is D. Because D infers that "only graduate students of Renmin University can get Wu Scholarship", according to the conversion formula between the necessary and sufficient conditions on pages 50 and 224 of the Guiding Opinions, the conclusion in the topic can be drawn.
Ex. 4: If all the employees in the enterprise are distracted, then the leaders of the enterprise certainly don't understand management psychology.
Which of the following must be the premise of the above conclusion?
A, enterprises with poor economic benefits will be distracted.
B, leading cadres do not lead by example, enterprises have no cohesion.
C, using the relevant knowledge of management psychology to manage, can make the enterprise form cohesion.
D, business managers should learn some psychology.
E, managers who don't study psychology can also mobilize the enthusiasm of employees.
[Analysis and solution] The answer to this question is C. According to the hypothetical translocation law on pages 50 and 224 of the Guide, C can draw a conclusion in the stem of the question.
Third, strengthen the premise type.
There are premises and conclusions in the stem, but the premises in the stem are not enough to draw conclusions. Candidates are required to find supplementary premises among the five alternative answers in order to draw conclusions from the stem of the questions.
Example 5: Xiao Wang and Xiao Li had the following conversation about smoking:
Xiao Wang: "I don't think you should object to my smoking."
Xiao Li: "It's hard to say."
Xiao Wang: "At least I didn't object to your smoking!" " "
What is the implied premise in Xiao Wang's words?
Smoking is harmful to health.
B, smoking is harmless to health.
C, smokers have little influence on non-smokers.
D, if I don't object to your smoking, then you shouldn't object to my smoking.
E. If I object to your smoking, you can also object to my smoking.
[Analysis and solution] The answer to this question is D. Because of D and the second sentence of Wang in the topic, according to the positive premise of hypothetical reasoning under sufficient conditions, we can draw the conclusion of Wang's first sentence in the topic.
Example 6: In an experiment, half of the subjects, as the experimental group, ate a lot of monosodium glutamate. The other half of the control group did not eat this monosodium glutamate. Results The cognitive ability of the experimental group was much worse than that of the control group. This unfavorable result is caused by glutamic acid, which is the main component of this monosodium glutamate.
Which of the following is correct, which is the most helpful to prove that some components in monosodium glutamate lead to this experimental conclusion?
A, most consumers of monosodium glutamate don't eat a lot of monosodium glutamate like people in the experiment.
B, glutamic acid mentioned in the above conclusion is found in all protein. In order to ensure nutrition, a certain amount must be ingested.
C, the amount of monosodium glutamate consumed by people in the experimental group is within the safe dose stipulated by government food regulations.
D in the second experiment, only one group was given a large amount of monosodium glutamate as the experimental group, and there was no control group without monosodium glutamate.
E. Before the experiment, the two groups of subjects were equally distributed according to their cognitive ability.
[Question Analysis and Answer] The experiment described in the stem is a difference experiment, which is characterized by seeking differences from the same, that is, other preconditions are the same, with only one difference, that is, the experimental group ate a lot of monosodium glutamate, while the control group did not. So the answer to this question is E. Because of E, this experiment is reliable.
Fourth, the rebuttal type
The first three are all proved by reasoning. If the premise in the original question is true or is completely true by supplementing the premise, then the conclusion can be proved to be necessarily true by deduction or very likely to be true by induction. Finding the premise from the conclusion is also a proof. Refutation can refute the topic (conclusion of reasoning), the argument (premise of reasoning) and the way of argument (form of reasoning):
(A) determine the options to refute the conclusion.
Exodus 7. At present, a drug that is very effective for many infectious diseases can only be extracted from a bark called ibora, which is rare in nature. Only 5000 trees can extract 1 kg of drugs. Therefore, the continuous production of this drug will inevitably lead to the extinction of this plant.
Which of the following is correct and can weaken the above statement most?
A. Distribute medicines extracted from Ebola bark to doctors through authoritative organizations.
B. the production cost of extracting drugs from bark is very high.
C Iborra leaves are used in many medical products.
D and ibora can be cultivated artificially by cutting propagation.
E and ibora mainly grow in inaccessible places lunwen 189.