ChaseDream

标题: [讨论]大全C-14 [打印本页]

作者: rpch2004 时间: 2008-4-29 21:56
标题: [讨论]大全C-14

14. Dr. A: The new influenza vaccine is useless at best and possibly dangerous. I would never use it on a patient.

Dr. B: But three studies published in the Journal of Medical Associates have rated that vaccine as unusually effective.

Dr. A: The studies must have been faulty because the vaccine is worthless.

In which of the following is the reasoning most similar to that of Dr. A?

(A) Three of my patients have been harmed by that vaccine during the past three weeks, so the vaccine is unsafe.

(B) Jerrold Jersey recommends this milk, and I don’t trust Jerrold Jersey, so I won’t buy this milk.

(D) I’m buying Vim Vitamins. Doctors recommend them more often than they recommend any other vitamins, so Vim Vitamins must be good.（C）

(E) Since University of Muldoon graduates score about 20 percent higher than average on the GMAT, Sheila Lee, a University of Muldoon graduate, will score about 20 percent higher than average when she takes the GMAT.

为什么C的推理和Dr. A一致，如何分析？谢谢

作者: rpch2004 时间: 2008-4-30 18:38
up

作者: rpch2004 时间: 2008-5-2 17:29
up

作者: anistonlucky 时间: 2008-5-2 17:40

选C，A的推理逻辑是，vaccine本身不好，他就说那个study is false,

不一定啊，既是vaccine不好是实施，但是那个study也不一定是错的，因为有可能刚好那个study 就研究到一个effective的vaccine呢？

D A攻击的方法是用本身不好来类推跟他有有关的报到都是false的

C就是这样的。

作者: rpch2004 时间: 2008-5-6 18:00

多谢，明白C的道理了

原文说如果本身不好，所有说它好的相关报道都是错误的

反过来，如果本身很好，所有有关他的好的说法都是对的

C说因为W网球比其他任何网球都有效，所以W网球在使用中表现最

作者: dkajia 时间: 2010-4-19 22:56
我对这题也很困惑，看了楼上的解释好像似懂非懂，是不是应该这么理解：
文中DR.A的推理是本身不好，所以有关它的报道应该都是不好的;逆否一下就是如果有关它的报道都是好的，那么本身就应该是好的。
所以C中因为报道说这个W的球要比别的好，所以它本身应该就是最好的

不知道这么理解对吗？

欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/)