大全-D-11

11.Gloria: Those who advocate tuition tax credits for parents whose children attend private schools maintain that people making no use of a government service should not be forced to pay for it. Yet those who choose to buy bottled water rather than drink water from the local supply are not therefore exempt from paying taxes to maintain the local water supply.

Roger: Your argument is illogical. Children are required by law to attend school. Since school attendance is a matter not of choice, but of legal requirement, it is unfair for the government to force some parents to pay for it twice.

Which of the following responses by Gloria would best refute Roger’s charge that her argument is illogical?

(A) Although drinking water is not required by law, it is necessary for all people, and therefore my analogy is appropriate.

(B) Those who can afford the tuition at a high-priced private school can well bear the same tax burden as those whose children attend public schools.

(C) If tuition tax credits are granted, the tax burden on parents who choose public schools will rise to an intolerable level.

(D) The law does not say that parents must send their children to private schools, only that the children must attend some kind of school, whether public or private.（A）

(E) Both bottled water and private schools are luxury items, and it is unfair that some citizens should be able to afford them while others cannot.

我有几个问题：

1.roger 反对gloria，他用law是为了针对gloria类比中的哪个漏洞？

2.roger：Your argument is illogical. Children are required by law to attend school. Since school attendance is a matter not of choice, but of legal requirement, it is unfair for the government to force some parents to pay for it twice.他的因果关系，我弄不明白。怎么回pay twice呢？

3.我开始选的D。看到答案后才明白他是在考错误的类比关系。

但我觉得D也可以削弱roger的话，大家认为呢？

1. 个人认为，roger是想驳斥gloria的类比，认为其不可比。R说上学不像一个matter or of choice，是一个legal requirement，而饮水则属于一种matter or of choice。所以不可比

2. 所谓pay twice，是因为学生家长要交私立学校的钱，同时还要交政府的钱，则是双分。

3. D并没有直接反驳R呀，R是批驳G的类比，那反驳就要从类比入手。

我觉得D确实驳斥了呀。1）为什么从类比出发的驳斥才是直接驳斥呢？2）即使只有从类比出发的驳斥才是直接驳斥，题目又没有要求一定要直接驳斥呀。呵呵，有点像道逻辑题。

题干最后一句话 it is unfair for the government to force some parents to pay for it twice，我觉得就是D的很好的驳斥点。D说，law又没有规定家长must 送孩子去私立学校。不就是说government didn't force parents to send to private school, so government didn't force parents to pay for it twice吗？

期望讨论！

同意lawyer的分析，本题要求选项能refute R’s charge that G’s
argument is illogical, 而R指责G’s argument
illogical的核心就是指出了G的类比的缺陷，即water和education不同。A指出其实两者是相同的，所以最好的反驳了R的指责。D只是指出了R所称的legal requirement的含义不准确，但即使legal requirement的含义有问题也不等于water和education就可比了。因此从反驳的角度D没有A好。

Gloria:

Those who advocate tuition tax credits for parents whose children attend private schools maintain that people making no use of a government service should not be forced to pay for it.
            

Yet those who choose to buy bottled water rather than drink water from the local supply are not therefore exempt from paying taxes to maintain the local water supply.

我感觉这句类比逻辑明显不对

因为没有得到证政府的服务，所以上私立学校学生的家长无须交学费税
但是喝瓶装水而非当地水的人还是要付当地水税

谁来帮我分析一下？

答案是什么？

我的答案：A

G观点
                不使用公共设施，不缴税

R观点
                因为法律要求上学，非选择，要缴税，但不缴两次。

题目：支持G 反对
                    R

B/C很容易排除

E 反对G排除

还是选择，支持
                    R

故答案
                    A

这道题目太难了，请牛牛指导！

关键是思考的方向是什么？