ChaseDream
搜索
返回列表 发新帖
查看: 3154|回复: 3

狒狒逻辑131,望高手

[复制链接]
发表于 2011-4-15 22:38:00 | 显示全部楼层 |阅读模式
131. To become an expert on a musical instrument, a person must practice. If a person practice a musical instrument for three hours each day, they will eventually become expert on that instrument. Therefore, if a person is an expert on a musical instrument, that person must have practiced for at least three hours each day.

Which one of the following most accurately describes a flaw in the reasoning above?

A.    The conclusion fails to take into account that people who practice for three hours every day might not yet have reached a degree of proficiency that everyone would consider expert.
B.    The conclusion fails to take into account that practicing for less than three hours each day may be enough for some people to become experts.
C.    the conclusion fails to take into account that if a person has not practiced for at least three hours a day, the person has not become an expert.
D.    The conclusion fails to take into account that three consecutive hours of daily practice is not recommended by all music teachers.
E.    The conclusion fails to take into account that few people have the spare time necessary to devote three hours daily to practice.

Reference:
In my view, the reasoning in this argument is that:
a person practice a musical instrument for three hours each day? they will eventually become expert
Under this circumstance , it is obvious that the fact that a person practice a musical instrument for three hours each day is sufficient to reach the sound conclusion that they will eventually become expert on that instrument. But this fact is not the necessary factor relevant to the conclusion that they will eventually become expert on that instrument.
After this analysis, we can make clear the logical flaw in this argument.
a person is an expert on a musical instrument? person must have practiced for at least three hours each day

So, we can easily find the correct answer is B.



我的问题是,这题明显是充分条件和必要条件不可逆的问题,那为啥A不行,同样推导不出弹了3小时就可以成为专家了呀?
发表于 2011-4-15 23:59:09 | 显示全部楼层
But it is not a flaw.A is irrelevant
发表于 2011-4-16 11:21:26 | 显示全部楼层
这题就是选B的。A中的everyone与原文无对应。而B的3hours是对应的。
发表于 2017-4-24 05:07:05 | 显示全部楼层
vicky110 发表于 2011-4-16 11:21
这题就是选B的。A中的everyone与原文无对应。而B的3hours是对应的。

我个人觉得你这个解释太牵强了,如果用原文对应的方式来比较,那C选项也有3 hours的对应,但C是错误选项,我自己的理解是:题目说文中的结论错在了哪里,重点是指结论的问题,即题主说的必要条件和充分条件的关系,只看结论本身,忽略了结论以外的情况,即少于3hours或多余3小时的情况,属于考虑不周全。而A错误的原因是直接去削弱原文的条件,即“练3小时,不一定成专家”,没有回答conclusion出现的问题。
您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 立即注册

Mark一下! 看一下! 顶楼主! 感谢分享! 快速回复:

手机版|ChaseDream|GMT+8, 2024-3-29 08:24
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号

ChaseDream 论坛

© 2003-2023 ChaseDream.com. All Rights Reserved.

返回顶部