ChaseDream

标题: 逻辑大全18-1没人问过 [打印本页]

作者: quickgao 时间: 2006-5-1 02:53
标题: 逻辑大全18-1没人问过

逻辑大全18-1

1. Since a rhinoceros that has no horn is worthless to poachers, the Wildlife Protection Committee plans to protect selected rhinoceroses from being killed by poachers by cutting off the rhinos’ horns.

The Wildlife Protection Committee’s plan assumes that

(A) poachers do not kill rhinos that are worthless to them

(B) hornless rhinos pose less of a threat to humans, including poachers, than do rhinos that have horns

(D) hornless rhinos can successfully defend their young against nonhuman predators（A）

(E) imposing more stringent penalties on poachers will not decrease the number of rhinos killed by poachers

同意A. 但是E错在哪里？(E)去掉not后不能削弱原文吗？

作者: yaoyao99 时间: 2006-5-1 03:05
The question is about an assumption for the current plan. E talks about an alternative plan that might also help, irrelavant to the what is being asked.

作者: quickgao 时间: 2006-5-2 04:06

Thanks for reply.

跳绳可以消耗脂肪，所以要减肥的人应该去跳绳。

“打羽毛球不能帮助减肥”---这个不算是假设吗？

作者: yaoyao99 时间: 2006-5-2 04:47
"Badminton/swimming will also help you lose weight" is not an
assumption that you have to make when you decide to go with jump rope.

作者: quickgao 时间: 2006-5-2 22:08

也就是说，虽然罚款也对保护犀牛有帮助，但是原文并没有讨论是否应该罚款；原文只是在讨论是否应该砍掉horn,所以罚款是否有效是无关的。“罚款也可以保护犀牛”并不能削弱“砍掉horn可以保护犀牛”，因为这是两个完全不同的命题，讲的是不同的事情。对吗？

同样，即使“Badminton/swimming will also help you lose weight”，但原命题是在论证是否应该参加跳绳，所以也是无关的。

作者: quickgao 时间: 2006-5-3 08:42
up

作者: yaoyao99 时间: 2006-5-3 09:46
Exactly.

作者: quickgao 时间: 2006-5-3 12:01
thx a lot!

作者: yaoyao99 时间: 2006-5-3 12:49
Glad to be of help, =)

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