ChaseDream
标题: [求助]lsat4-3-11看了以前的贴，还是不明白 [打印本页]
作者: 247 时间: 2006-5-9 15:23
标题: [求助]lsat4-3-11看了以前的贴，还是不明白
1. 
rofessor Smith published a paper arguing that a chemical found in minute quantities in most drinking water had an adverse effect on the human nervous system. Existing scientific theory held that no such effect was possible because there was no neural mechanism for bringing it about. Several papers by well-known scientists in the filed followed, unanimously purporting to prove Professor Smith wrong. This clearly shows that the scientific establishment was threatened by Professor Smith’s work and conspired to discredit it.
Which one of the following is the central flaw in the argument given by the author of the passage?
A. The author passes over the possibility that Professor Smith had much to gain should Professor Smith’s discovery have found general acceptance.
B. The author fails to mention whether or not Professor Smith knew that the existence of the alleged new effect was incompatible with established scientific theory.
C. The author fails to show why the other scientists could not have been presenting evidence in order to establish the truth of the matter.
D. The author neglects to clarify what his or her relationship to Professor Smith is.
E. The author fails to indicate what, if any, effect the publication of Professor Smith’s paper had on the public’s confidence in the safety of most drinking water.
其他选项为什么错我都理解，但为什么C对呢?
哪位NN帮忙解释一下，多谢多谢！
作者: sunglasses 时间: 2006-5-17 08:58
结论：the scientific establishment was threatened by Professor Smith’s work and conspired to discredit it
科学家诋毁S的行为表明科学理论基础被S威胁，
前提：Professor Smith published a paper arguing that a chemical found in minute quantities in most drinking water had an adverse effect on the human nervous system. Existing scientific theory held that no such effect was possible because there was no neural mechanism for bringing it about.
现在的科学理论无法解释S论文中的某种化学物质对神经系统的负面作用，
Several papers by well-known scientists in the filed followed, unanimously purporting to prove Professor Smith wrong.
几位知名科学家一起证伪S的结论
答案：
The author fails to show why the other scientists could not have been presenting evidence in order to establish the truth of the matter.
作者没有说明，为什么科学家的行为不是证明事实的真相
作者: jieyulike 时间: 2006-5-22 22:28
本来文章的逻辑错误是诉诸权威（即SCIENTISTS），现在这个选项正好指出了原文的缺陷。
作者: jane1109 时间: 2006-8-6 20:11
alternative possiblity, the writer failed to state any of this. thus by pointing out the alternative motive of why the other scientists have published their reports to prove Prof. Smith wrong, this weakens the conclusion of the argument, which is saying the motive of these scientists is out of their self-serving interests.
作者: fredshen 时间: 2006-8-9 02:05
标题: attack source
This is a variant of "attack source" fallacy. Ad hominem.
作者: zxzhyzcy 时间: 2007-5-2 22:05
作者: zxzhyzcy 时间: 2007-5-2 22:07
以下是引用sunglasses在2006-5-17 8:58:00的发言：结论：the scientific establishment was threatened by Professor Smith’s work and conspired to discredit it
科学家诋毁S的行为表明科学理论基础被S威胁，
前提：Professor Smith published a paper arguing that a chemical found in minute quantities in most drinking water had an adverse effect on the human nervous system. Existing scientific theory held that no such effect was possible because there was no neural mechanism for bringing it about.
现在的科学理论无法解释S论文中的某种化学物质对神经系统的负面作用，
Several papers by well-known scientists in the filed followed, unanimously purporting to prove Professor Smith wrong.
几位知名科学家一起证伪S的结论
答案：
The author fails to show why the other scientists could not have been presenting evidence in order to establish the truth of the matter.
作者没有说明，为什么科学家的行为不是证明事实的真相
同意~~自己做的时候错了~当时没怎么看懂这个选项的意思，谢谢解释哦~
| 欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/) |
Powered by Discuz! X3.3 |