标题: LSAT-18-2-21 [打印本页] 作者: snow_mountain 时间: 2003-12-5 15:48 标题: LSAT-18-CR2-21 21. The West does not escape the effects of its relationship with the non-Western world. Even as an individual fails to develop fully without constant interaction with an equal, a tradition of thought loses vitality and lacks the capacity for rigorous self-criticism without the probing presence of an authentic "other." In the absence of constant and critical dialogue with other traditions. Western thought remains parochial, commonplace, and narrow. Which one of the following techniques of argument does the author use in the passage? (A) identifying a point of similarity between two different states of affairs (B) reconciling two opposed sets of circumstances with each other (C) identifying a conclusion that has no supporting argument (D) deriving a conclusion from a set of conflicting assumptions (E) taking advantage of inconsistencies in the definition of a critical term
snow_mountain 发表于 2003-12-5 15:48
21. The West does not escape the effects of itsrelationship with the non-Western world. Even asan in ...
Possibly one of the best questions I have seen here.
The argument simply made a flaw by citing just because the similarities relies in the process of how a characteristic developed shown from A->B is similar to it of C->D, so the reasoning is " qualified " to be comparable.
Individual fails to develop fully without constant interaction with an equal, tradition of thought loses vitality and lacks the capacity for rigorous self-criticism without the probing of an authentic " other ".
In the absence of constant and critical dialogue with other traditions, western thought remains parochial, common place, and narrow.
So what are 2 " state of affairs " here
1. Individual's thoughts ( 個體的故步自封）
2. Western thoughts （ 整體的剛愎自用）
A. Perfect answer
B. there are no any sets of circumstances opposing each other.
C. It " indeed " does have supporting argument regardless of the fact that whether the supporting document is really supportive or not.
D. It does not have any conflicting assumptions. Means you might need to make 2 necessary assumptions, and one of them is either Mistaken negate or reverse of the other.
E. there is no any inconsistencies here within the argument.