ChaseDream

标题: 逻辑大全D15 [打印本页]

作者: jingliu097 时间: 2015-5-30 23:21
标题: 逻辑大全D15
15.Those who oppose experimentation on animals do not properly value the preservation of human life. Although animal suffering is unfortunate, it is justifiable if it can lead to cures for human ailments.
Melvin: But much animal experimentation involves testing of ordinary consumer products such as soaps, dyes, and cosmetics.
Susan: These experiments are justifiable on the same grounds, since cleanliness, convenience, and beauty are worthwhile human values deserving ofsupport.
Which of the following is the best statement of the logical flaw in Susanʼ’s argument?
(A) Her claim that animal experimentation is justifiable if it supports human values contradicts her claim that such experimentation is justifiable only if it leads to cures for human ailments.
(B) She places a higher value on human cleanliness, convenience, and beauty than she does on the preservation of animal life.(C) She uses the word “value” in two different senses.
(D) She assumes that all ordinary consumer products aid in the preservation of human life.
(E) She fails to show how mere support for human values actually preserves human lives.

选E

这一题怎么没有小伙伴们提出来呢？求思路~

作者: benjaminsandro 时间: 2015-6-5 22:15
关键在on the same grounds

作者: alzn2765 时间: 2015-6-7 01:56
题干是因果推理：
因：在动物身上实验有preservation of human life的价值
果：在动物身上实验有道理

Melvin质疑testing of ordinary consumer products such as soaps, dyes, and cosmetics没有preservation of human life的价值，是质疑因

而Susan的回答是testing of ordinary consumer products is worthwhile human values deserving of support，这些是preservation of human life的那种human values吗？如果不是，那么Susan的回答就是flawed的。

攒人品，希望有人回答我提的问题：
http://forum.chasedream.com/thread-1009949-1-1.html

作者: jingliu097 时间: 2015-6-7 10:34

alzn2765 发表于 2015-6-7 01:56
题干是因果推理：
因：在动物身上实验有preservation of human life的价值
果：在动物身上实验有道理

谢谢，我懂了

欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/)