Susan: 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 of support.
Which of the following is the best statement of the logical flaw in Susan’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.
实在看不明白为什么是E，请教各位DN指点？
我觉得,susan的flaw是,第一句话说那些对人生命,健康的动物实验才是合理的,而后面她有说干净,漂亮也是人们值得人们支持的,
她的两句话好象没什么联系,好象在个说个的,e说她连起码的对人类生命的保护这一点的支持都没作到(因为没有关系,所以更谈不上第二句支持第一句)
c我觉得两个value都是说衡量....的价值,第一个是衡量保护人类生命的价值,第二个是衡量值得支持的东西(像干净,方便,漂亮)的价值
a我觉得两个主张不是矛盾的,是没有关系
嘿嘿,个人观点,有待讨论
| 欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/) | Powered by Discuz! X3.3 |