标题: LSAT-8-4-25 [打印本页] 作者: mythicalman 时间: 2003-11-18 22:54 标题: LSAT-8-4-25 5. George: A well-known educator claims that children who are read to when they are very young are more likely to enjoy reading when they grow up than are children who were not read to. But this claim is clearly false. My cousin Emory was regularly read to as a child and as an adult he seldom reads for pleasure, whereas no one read to me and reading is now my favorite form of relaxation.
Ursula: You and Emory prove nothing in this case. Your experience is enough to refute the claim that all avid adult readers were read to as children, but what the educator said about reading to children is not that sort of claim.
Which one of the following describes a flaw in Georges reasoning?
(A) He treats his own experience and the experiences of other members of his own family as though they have more weight as evidence than do the experiences of other people.
(B) He does not distinguish between the quality and the quantity of the books that adults read to Emory when Emory was a child.
(C) He overlooks the well-known fact that not all reading is equally relaxing.
(D) He fails to establish that the claim made by this particular educator accurately reflects the position held by the majority of educators.
(E) He attempts to refute a general claim by reference to nonconforming cases, although the claim is consistent with the occurrence of such cases.
E 问一下，这里的逻辑漏洞是不是指george 和 emory只是特例，不能反对一般性的命题more likely 作者: 番茄炒蛋 时间: 2003-11-19 00:59
我觉得不是特例这么简单 that children who are read to when they are very young are more likely to enjoy reading 前者是后者的一个充分条件 Emory是一个反例，使得充分条件不充分 至于这个:ME:,和原文的条件没有什么关系，纯粹是出来搞事的，不能说明原文的逻辑是错误的