ChaseDream

标题: 求助大侠们一道题，想不通~~~~~ [打印本页]

作者: jolin1031 时间: 2016-6-9 17:18
标题: 求助大侠们一道题，想不通~~~~~

求助大侠们:

我认为下面这道题,也可以选E.思路:

系安全带是自由的,只要不伤害别人

E选项,说的是,不系安全带交通意外中受伤比系安全带高,那么是说明Hurt的,

但是答案选B, 哪位大侠能帮忙解读下?

万分感谢~~~~~

14. Opponents of laws that require automobile drivers andpassengers to wear seat belts argue that in a free society people have theright to take risks as long as the people do not harm other as a result oftaking the risks. As a result, they conclude that it should be each person’sdecision whether or not to wear a seat belt.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakensthe conclusion drawn above?

A. Many new cars are built with seat belts thatautomatically fasten when someone sits in the front seat.

B. Automobile insurance rates for all automobile ownersare higher because of the need to pay for the increased injuries or deaths ofpeople not wearing seat belts.

C. Passengers in airplanes are required to wear seatbelts during takeoffs and landings.

D. The rate of automobile fatalities in states that donot have mandatory seat belt laws is greater than the rate of fatalities instates that do have such laws. B

E. In automobile accidents, a greater number ofpassengers who do not wear seat belts are injured than are passengers who dowear seat belts.

作者: i4blue 时间: 2016-6-10 17:16
结论是：系或者不系安全带是你的权利【只要你承担责任且不伤害他人】
B. auto owners need to pay higher insurance rate B/C 不系安全带的高车祸率 -->你不系安全带，车主也得付高额保险，伤害他们利益，所以WEAKEN CONCLUSION
E. 高车祸率和结论没关系，结论在于as long as the people do not harm other as a result oftaking the risks.

作者: jolin1031 时间: 2016-7-11 21:03
谢谢blue!

作者: GusTun 时间: 2016-7-19 11:52
上面说的很对呀，这道题我觉得关键在于不伤害他人。
逻辑链应该是这样的:在不伤害他人的情况下每个人都有自由选择的权利—（不系安全带不伤害他人）—可以不系安全带。括号里面是题目中没有明说的。
削弱的重点应该是括号中的推论，就是说不系安全带不伤害他人。B中说的是因为你不系安全带所以其他人交的保险费多了。这是伤害了别人的表现。E里面说的不系安全带的乘客受伤的更多。这个并不是伤害了别人而只是伤害了自己。所以E选项不太合适~

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