ChaseDream

标题: 请教逻辑og-14题 [打印本页]

作者: ffanghua 时间: 2003-8-12 11:25
标题: 请教逻辑og-14题

og逻辑的第14道题我实在不理解，有那位高手师傅可以帮忙解释一下，我的邮箱ffanghua@hotmail.com,非常感谢了

作者: 八戒 时间: 2003-8-12 11:27
能不能把题目写出来呀！！！！

我想除了了zeros以外，没有人会把OG放旁边，一边上网一边看的！

如果有的话，云里来雾里去的！！
谁能看懂呀！！

多谢！

作者: ffanghua 时间: 2003-8-12 13:24
Opponents of laws that require automobile drivers and passengers to wear seat belts argue that in a free society people have the right to take risks as long as the people do not harm other as a result of taking the risks .As a result ,they conclude that it should be each person's decision whether or not to wear a seat belt .
which of the following ,if true ,nost seriously weakens the conclusion drawn above ?
A many new cars are built with seat belts that automatically fasten when someone sits in the front seat .
B automobile insurance rates for all automobile owners are higher because of the need ot pay for the increased injuries of deaths of people not wearing seat belts .
C passagers in airplanes are required to wear seat belts during takeoffs and landings .
D the rate of automobile fatalities in states that do not have mandatory seat belt laws os greater than the rate of fatalities in states that do have such laws
E in autonobile accidents ,a great number of passengers who do not wear seat belts are injured that are passengers who do wear seat belts .

作者: 八戒 时间: 2003-8-12 13:46
呵.........我中午也刚回去看了！！

前提是：

Opponents of laws that require automobile drivers and passengers to wear seat belts argue that in a free society people have the right to take risks

解释2是：

as long as the people do not harm other as a result of taking the risks

演绎方向：因果型！

一般来说，因果型的weaken是他因解释前提即可！

可这道题的答案是：B、
也就是他因否认结论！
因为他使insurance升高，所以伤害了其他人！

作者: ffanghua 时间: 2003-8-12 16:05
谢谢八戒大哥

作者: 耳朵 时间: 2004-1-31 12:21
谢谢！
关键在于怎么理解“伤害他人”这个概念。通常国内的交通安全的宣传，都是说要注意遵守规章制度（戴安全带也属于其中之一），减少事故发生率，免得造成自己和别人的生命和财产的损失，对自己和对别人都有好处。如果从这个角度理解，那么应该选D。我就是选的D。：（
不过想想也对，不带安全带，万一发生事故，应该是驾驶者受到的伤害更大，跟其他人没有必然的联系。而如果驾驶者收到伤害，保险公司要赔偿，因此提高了保险金，这对于其他守法的驾驶者来说是不公平的，因而是一种“伤害”可以称为是“间接伤害”。
不过，根据费费的解释，通常出现无关内容的选项是要淘汰的。这里的保险公司就是文中没有提到的，而且也是weaken的结论，不是weaken原因，叫人想不通！

作者: rose1100xu 时间: 2004-4-17 16:52
weaken可以有无关内容出现的。

作者: swlfx 时间: 2005-5-19 16:58
可否将保险和保险公司等同理解，就不至于出现新的概念。

作者: 丑得老婆哭 时间: 2005-7-14 20:18

以下是引用耳朵在2004-1-31 12:21:00的发言：
谢谢！
关键在于怎么理解“伤害他人”这个概念。通常国内的交通安全的宣传，都是说要注意遵守规章制度（戴安全带也属于其中之一），减少事故发生率，免得造成自己和别人的生命和财产的损失，对自己和对别人都有好处。如果从这个角度理解，那么应该选D。我就是选的D。：（
不过想想也对，不带安全带，万一发生事故，应该是驾驶者受到的伤害更大，跟其他人没有必然的联系。而如果驾驶者收到伤害，保险公司要赔偿，因此提高了保险金，这对于其他守法的驾驶者来说是不公平的，因而是一种“伤害”可以称为是“间接伤害”。
不过，根据费费的解释，通常出现无关内容的选项是要淘汰的。这里的保险公司就是文中没有提到的，而且也是weaken的结论，不是weaken原因，叫人想不通！

车险中有一种叫作“弟三者责任险”，是强制性保险，这是汽车拥有者必须购买的保险，目的是出车祸后，能够第三者（非汽车拥有者）以赔偿，所以无论谁受伤，只要保了险，保险公司都要赔偿。

作者: mutegirl 时间: 2005-10-11 21:40

以下是引用ffanghua在2003-8-12 13:24:00的发言：
Opponents of laws that require automobile drivers and passengers to wear seat belts argue that in a free society people have the right to take risks as long as the people do not harm other as a result of taking the risks .As a result ,they conclude that it should be each person's decision whether or not to wear a seat belt .
which of the following ,if true ,nost seriously weakens the conclusion drawn above ?
A many new cars are built with seat belts that automatically fasten when someone sits in the front seat .
B automobile insurance rates for all automobile owners are higher because of the need ot pay for the increased injuries of deaths of people not wearing seat belts .
C passagers in airplanes are required to wear seat belts during takeoffs and landings .
D the rate of automobile fatalities in states that do not have mandatory seat belt laws os greater than the rate of fatalities in states that do have such laws
E in autonobile accidents ,a great number of passengers who do not wear seat belts are injured that are passengers who do wear seat belts .

推理过程:只要不伤害其他人，就有权利选择是否佩戴安全带

结论：每个人有权利决定自己是否带安全带

削弱：不带安全带又确实伤害了其他人（不符合不伤害他人的前提）

[此贴子已经被作者于2005-10-11 21:42:06编辑过]

作者: hypo 时间: 2005-10-12 13:42

我觉得作题的时候一定要“一根筋”，不能像太多

这道题只要有一个常识性概念就可以——安全带带来安全

所以，D中的死亡率高，可以认为是没系安全带的人都死掉了，而系了的都没事情，所以D在支持原文中的论调，不系安全带是自己的事情，死掉就死掉了不会伤害其他人

但是B提到了，保险费用会普遍上涨，因此损害了系安全带的人

作者: zhiyuan 时间: 2006-2-11 23:19
明白了，很是感谢

作者: allen0018 时间: 2006-5-23 17:08

这道题关键还是观念的问题

肇事司机死了，可能是自己的车把自己撞死了，所以“和别人无关”，D，E 起到支持而不是反对的作用

作者: KATIEUS 时间: 2006-11-17 01:39

作者: pipidovelee 时间: 2006-12-1 15:08

这题我思索了一段时间, 觉得应该先从理解 as long as 下手,

才能理解OG的思路,所以就从 as long as 开始...

From Longman,

as long as/provided (that)/providing (that)

[conjunction] use this when something will be possible or satisfactory only if something else happens or is done
Eg. You'll be quite safe as long as you follow my instructions.

本题题目用 as long as, 解释用 provided, 从这个观点, 可以看出ETS的观念跟Longman的解释是符合的. 如此一来, 就确定这题是条件型结论(依照Lawyer的逻辑)

结论是: Decision -> no harm (No harm 是必要条件)

OG对这题的思路是: 让推论变成 Decision -> harm 就可以 weaken.

也就是用 lawyer 说的充分成立但必要不成立的方法

而B确实可以, 因为那些决定不系安全带的人, 他们的受伤或死亡 (Decision) ->

的确让所有车主的的保险费升高了 (harm)

My 2 cents.

作者: bestway 时间: 2006-12-2 13:42
一直认为保险金是固定付的而且提前交，与乘客带安全带与否没有关系也没法预计危险，（另外也有个先后问题，先交保险，出现没带安全带损伤后才有赔偿）。可否这样理解，保险费的涨说明司机是要承担这个赔偿责任的。有保险公司，保险费的上涨是对所有司机而言的，当然会损害所有司机利益；若没有保险公司，那么这个司机要掏这部分钱，如此不带安全带造成的损伤会给司机带来Money的付出。

作者: liupeishabi 时间: 2007-9-18 10:31

请各位大人再看看这道题。

如果推理的过程是：只要不伤害他人，就可以自己选择戴不戴安全带。

削弱的的话，应该是即使不伤害他人，也不可以自己选择戴不戴。

而如果说选b的话是不是反对前提了呢？

作者: katrinaxy520 时间: 2008-9-15 16:14

我觉得这道题就是反对了前提．结论是由前提推导出来的，所以质疑前提就是削弱结论的一种．

现在总算是有些做题的感觉了，看了ＬＡＷＹＥＲ的总结启发真的很大．

关于削弱题，只有是条件型结论的题目，答案不能否定条件．在这里，条件是结论的一部分．用ＬＡＷＹＥＲ曾经举的一个例子：上ＣＤ２４小时ＧＭＡＴ就能考８００分．这就是个条件型的结论．不可能上ＣＤ２４小时这不是削弱了结论，这类题目是要说在充分条件成立的情况下必要条件不一定成立，在这里上ＣＤ２４小时就是充分条件．

我自己就把前提和条件弄混了，总认为答案不可以否认前提的．．．．其实不然，在削弱题中否定前提就是对结论的削弱．

这是我自己的一点感受．和大家分享一下．

作者: helenzane 时间: 2008-9-19 17:27

楼上大哥，看了你的留言，我终于明白了什么叫“条件型的削弱”了，但是有一个问题：

OG14的这道题，到底是不是条件型削弱呢？因为原文写着：People have the right to take resks as long as the people do not harm other as a result of taking the restk.这里的as long as 能否理解为if呢？如果这样的话，那就是条件型的削弱了，不是说条件型的削弱要承认if的充分性么？承认if之后的内容，然后证明结论依然不正确。如果这样的话，那答案的方向应该是，不伤害别人，那也一定要系安全带阿~可是正确答案不是这样的。

谢谢大哥解释一下~

作者: helenzane 时间: 2008-9-20 10:07

E！E为什么不对？

不带安全带的passenger受伤多，为什么不对啊？

难道passenger不是乘客么？

作者: iamwuyan 时间: 2008-9-20 12:54
要仔细看原文的逻辑, 原文说"in a free society people have the right to take risks as long as the people do not harm other as a result of taking the risks", 说的是判断标准是TAKE RISK的人(不系安全带的人)会不会伤害别人

E选项如果乘客不系安全带, 那是乘客自己TAKE RISK, 到头来祸害的也是他们自己, 与别人无关, 从而对原文没有产生影响

作者: kevin070707 时间: 2008-9-20 16:36

以下是引用ffanghua在2003-8-12 13:24:00的发言：
Opponents of laws that require automobile drivers and passengers to wear seat belts argue that in a free society people have the right to take risks as long as the people do not harm other as a result of taking the risks .As a result ,they conclude that it should be each person's decision whether or not to wear a seat belt .
which of the following ,if true ,nost seriously weakens the conclusion drawn above ?
A   many new cars are built with seat belts that automatically fasten when someone sits in the front seat .
B   automobile insurance rates for all automobile owners are higher because of the need ot pay for the increased injuries of deaths of people not wearing seat belts .
C   passagers in airplanes are required to wear seat belts during takeoffs and landings .
D   the rate of automobile fatalities in states that do not have mandatory seat belt laws os greater than the rate of fatalities in states that do have such laws
E   in autonobile accidents ,a great number of passengers who do not wear seat belts are injured that are passengers who do wear seat belts .

A：do not harm others; B: each person could decide whether to wear a seat belt.

A->B

To weaken, not A or C is a premise of A.

So, I could say the fact is that people do not wear a seat belt is harmful to others.

Like B does, the people who don't want to wear seat belt make the insurance higher and does harmful to others people.

作者: helenzane 时间: 2008-9-21 08:11

以下是引用iamwuyan在2008-9-20 12:54:00的发言：
要仔细看原文的逻辑, 原文说"in a free society people have the right to take risks as long as the people do not harm other as a result of taking the risks", 说的是判断标准是TAKE RISK的人(不系安全带的人)会不会伤害别人

E选项如果乘客不系安全带, 那是乘客自己TAKE RISK, 到头来祸害的也是他们自己, 与别人无关, 从而对原文没有产生影响

谢谢谢谢！恍然大悟

作者: 伯爵奶茶 时间: 2009-5-21 21:47
18楼的katrinaxy520
我觉得这道题就是反对了前提．结论是由前提推导出来的，所以质疑前提就是削弱结论的一种．
现在总算是有些做题的感觉了，看了ＬＡＷＹＥＲ的总结启发真的很大．
关于削弱题，只有是条件型结论的题目，答案不能否定条件．在这里，条件是结论的一部分．用ＬＡＷＹＥＲ曾经举的一个例子：上ＣＤ２４小时ＧＭＡＴ就能考８００分．这就是个条件型的结论．不可能上ＣＤ２４小时这不是削弱了结论，这类题目是要说在充分条件成立的情况下必要条件不一定成立，在这里上ＣＤ２４小时就是充分条件．
我自己就把前提和条件弄混了，总认为答案不可以否认前提的．．．．其实不然，在削弱题中否定前提就是对结论的削弱．
这是我自己的一点感受．和大家分享一下．
说的太好了，把我一直困惑的问题解决了，非常感谢。

作者: 伯爵奶茶 时间: 2009-5-21 22:01

此题 as a result 前面的内容全部是前提，所以是可以否定的。此类题目还有og10th—61、96等。都是直接否定前提来进行削弱。

另外如og10th—68 是条件型结论题目注意这两种类型题目下结论方式的不同！！！

A drug that is highly effective in treating many types of infection can, at present, be obtained only from the bark of the ibora, a tree that is quite rare in the wild. It takes the bark of 5,000 tree to make one kilogram of the drug. It follows, therefore, that continued production of the drug must inevitably lead to the ibora’s extinction.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument above?

(A) The drug made from ibora bark is dispensed to doctors from a central authority.

(B) The drug made from ibora bark is expensive to produce.

(D) The ibora can be propagated from cuttings and grown under cultivation. D

(E) The ibora generally grows in largely inaccessible places.

此题It follows前面的内容是前提，需要注意的是continued production of the drug 是条件，条件是不能否定的。因此E选项由于否定了条件，所以是不正确的。此题的正确选项是D。但是如果有个选项说其实这种树在野外很多。这个选项也是对的，因为它是否定了文中前提：a tree that is quite rare in the wild 所以也是正确选项！

作者: RSKV 时间: 2010-9-14 23:42
标题: 再请教一下OG-14
Opponents of laws that require automobile drivers and passengers to wear seat belts argue that in a free society people have the right to take risks as long as the people do not harm other as a result of taking the risks .As a result ,they conclude that it should be each person's decision whether or not to wear a seat belt .
which of the following ,if true ,nost seriously weakens the conclusion drawn above ?
A many new cars are built with seat belts that automatically fasten when someone sits in the front seat .
B automobile insurance rates for all automobile owners are higher because of the need ot pay for the increased injuries of deaths of people not wearing seat belts .
C passagers in airplanes are required to wear seat belts during takeoffs and landings .
D the rate of automobile fatalities in states that do not have mandatory seat belt laws os greater than the rate of fatalities in states that do have such laws
E in autonobile accidents ,a great number of passengers who do not wear seat belts are injured that are passengers who do wear seat belts .

我能理解B是正确答案，但是A为什么不对啊？我是这样想，A说上新车自动系好安全带，不就是说明系上安全带根本不是自己可以决定的嘛？为什么不能是削弱呢？请教大家了，谢谢！

作者: hallieJJ 时间: 2010-9-19 10:25
本来做这题时就没注意A过，不过看了LS的提问，又纠结了

a像是他因（安全带是自动系上的）导致结论（人们可以选择系安全带）被否定

不知俺的这个理解哪里出错了，请NN指教！！

作者: 小西儿 时间: 2011-3-12 23:10
你这一说把我也整迷糊了，但是看看就恍然大悟了。
那有人坐后面呢？不是就伤害了他人么

还有A里的NEW CAR 等新概念，，也很值得怀疑。

作者: emmahiggins09 时间: 2016-3-10 04:45
呃我想得更加简单，削弱题就是要NEW information 是结论不成立。
题目的结论是 as a result 后面的句子：they conclude that it should be each person's decision whether or not to wear a seat belt.

所以要找的选项是conclusion不成立的. 所以寻找的方向应该是 it shold NOT be EACH PERSON'S decsion.

选项B 给出 automobile insurance rates for ALL AUTOMOBILE OWNERS are higher because of the need ot pay for the increased injuries of deaths of people not wearing seat belts . 所以不是each person's decision 了因为这已经影响到了其他人。

是我想简单了？

作者: 水沫清凉 时间: 2016-9-6 15:09
看08新东方逻辑讲义时看到了这道老题目_(:зゝ∠)_

条件：只要不对别人造成伤害
结论：自己决定要不要带安全带

答案B说明了不带安全带确实给别人造成了伤害，否定了前提
分析错误选项
C没有对别人造成伤害，其实是出于好心为了让你没事，记得知乎有问题说飞机上每个规定都是生命换来的。。。
D说没有强制规定带安全带的州死亡率更高，其实也是没有对别人造成伤害，没有否定前提
E与D类似，都是说自己不带安全带比较容易出事
A说新车开快时坐前面的人的安全带自动收紧，也和后几个选项一个道理，没有伤害他人只是保护自己

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