One of the most confusing questions about the logical judgment of the test is the "premise" question, which is the "assumption" or "premise" on which the above argument is based. We know that the "premise" is the necessary condition that is missing from the argument to the conclusion. In other words, how to draw conclusions from the argument is a very crucial condition.
For example: Argument: Xiao Ming is very smart.
Conclusion: So, Xiao Ming's popularity is very good.
We found that how to get "Xiao Ming's good popularity" from "Xiao Ming's smartness", there is actually a lack of a premise in the middle, that is, "smart people are very popular", plus this premise, the conclusion is established. In fact, this is our premise-based "bridging method": when there is a jumping concept between the argument and the conclusion, establish a relationship between the jumping concept, and it's okay! Let's look at a topic:
Example 1] There are two main types of formula milk contaminated with Enterobacter sakazakii**: first, the milk powder itself contains a small amount of Enterobacter sakazakii; The second is to enter the formula through the surrounding environment and utensils contaminated with bacteria or hands. Therefore, the World Health Organization recommends that infant formula be prepared with water at least 70 degrees Celsius.
If the following statements are true, which is the premise of the above conclusion?
a.The main cause of diarrhea in infants and young children is Enterobacter sakazakii.
b.Water above 70 degrees Celsius kills Enterobacter sakazakii.
c.Water temperatures below 70 degrees Celsius will not affect the nutrition of the milk powder.
d.The vast majority of bacteria cannot survive in boiling water.
Analysis] b. The question stem first discussed that formula milk can be contaminated with Enterobacter sakazakii, and then concluded that infant formula should be prepared with water not less than 70 degrees Celsius. The argument is clearly in"Enterobacter sakazakii"with"Water not lower than 70 degrees Celsius"In order for this conclusion to be valid, a link needs to be established between the two, i.e., it is stated that water above 70 degrees Celsius can kill Enterobacter sakazakii, and item b is the prerequisite necessary for the conclusion to be true. None of the other three points to the link between the two and is not the premise to be sought. Therefore, B is selected for this question.
Through this question, we found that an important step in doing "premise" questions is to pay attention to the jumping concepts in "arguments" and "conclusions" in the question stem. In this question, the core of the argument is "Enterobacter itabazaki", and the core of the conclusion is "water not less than 70 degrees Celsius", so we should pay attention to the two keywords "Enterobacter itabazi" and "water not less than 70 degrees Celsius" when looking at options. If there is a concept of jumping, then it is enough to establish a connection between the two.
Let's use a sample problem to consolidate the exercise:
Example 2] Qualitologists have discovered two mysterious natural landscapes with a diameter of more than 200 kilometers in the ground 3 kilometers below the surface of central Australia, and the landscape contains clusters of thin lines in the quartz sand, most of which are parallel to each other. Geologists believe that these landscapes are likely craters formed by the impact of huge meteorites, and that the structure of quartz sand is evidence of the fracture. Which of the following is a necessary prerequisite for the above argument to be valid?
a.Only after a high-velocity meteorite impact will the quartz sand in the formation show a fracture structure containing parallel straight lines.
b.Quartz sand is ubiquitous on the earth's surface and rarely changes due to its hardness, wear resistance, and stable chemical properties.
c.The landscape is so large in diameter that unlike other craters that it was most likely not formed at one time.
d.The landscape surrounds rocks that are 300 million to 4200 million years ago, then the impact should have occurred in that period.
Analysis] a. Stem Argument: The quartz sand contained in the landscape has clusters of thin lines, most of which are parallel straight lines. Stem Thesis: These landscapes are likely craters formed by the impact of huge meteorites, and the structure of quartz sand is evidence of the fracture. There is a jump between argument and argument stem, and a connection needs to be made between "rectilinear structures parallel to each other in quartz sand" and "meteorite impact". Item a, which points out that only after a high-velocity meteorite impact will the quartz sand in the stratum show a fracture structure containing parallel straight lines, and the connection between the parallel straight structures in the quartz sand and the meteorite impact is a necessary prerequisite for the validity of the stem argument. None of the other three points to the link between the two and is not the premise to be sought. Therefore, a is selected for this question.
This question is still the concept of jumping between the argument and the conclusion, we only need to find the relationship between the "linear structure of quartz sand parallel to each other" and the "meteorite impact", we can quickly find the correct answer and get the answer, this is the bridging method!