The proper way to plan a scientific project is first to decide its goal and then to plan the best way to accomplish that goal. The United States space station project does not conform to this ideal. When the Cold War ended, the project lost its original purpose, so another purpose was quickly grafted onto the project, that of conducting limited-gravity experiments, even though such experiments can be done in an alternative way. It is, therefore, abundantly clear that the space station should not be built.
The reasoning in the argument is flawed because the argument
(A) attacks the proponents of a claim rather than arguing against the claim itself
(B) presupposes what it sets out to prove
(C) faults planners for not foreseeing a certain event, when in fact that event was not foreseeable
(D) contains statements that lead to a self-contradiction
(E) concludes that a shortcoming is fatal, having produced evidence only of the existence of that shortcoming
答案说是E怎么也想不通
我选了D 既然又有了another purpose那么自然就有意义了，不论是否有alternative way 所以再说should not be built就是自相矛盾了
我的理解，姑且抛砖引玉。
原文意思如下：
科学工程正确的策划（组织、计划）方法应该是：1、明确目标；2、设计最好的方法去达到目标。美国宇航空间站项目（的策划）没有遵守这个理念（实施）。当冷战结束以后，这个项目失去了原有的目标，另一个目标很快被“嫁接”到了这个项目上：进行有限重力实验；尽管这样的实验可以用其他途径替代进行。因此，充分清晰的表明了，这个空间站根本不应该建立。
以上的结论在推导过程中存在什么问题？
(D) contains statements that lead to a self-contradiction。楼主说：“既然又有了another purpose那么自然就有意义了，不论是否有alternative way 所以再说should not be built就是自相矛盾了”，红色部分原文已经明确告知，空间站项目做的不合乎理念，后面的文字是用来详细描述它怎么不对；不是解释它合乎这个理念的。作者的态度前后是一致的，所以，不存在自相矛盾的问题。
(E) concludes that a shortcoming is fatal, having produced evidence only of the existence of that shortcoming。作者在文中，通过找到并描述空间站项目的shortcoming，即红色部分，就说这个缺点fatal，这是reasoning过程中真正的flaw。因为，文中在得到conclusion前都没有表达“有缺点，可是不一定就会fatal啊”的意思。
恩，我的分析就是这样子了，做个参考吧
有点明白了
谢谢回答
| 欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/) | Powered by Discuz! X3.3 |