欢迎大家讨论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）
(E) She fails to show how mere support for human values actually preserves human lives.
是不是我真的太弱了，别人都没错过。前４个选项是不对，但E什么意思呀，也不明白。欢迎大家讨论
我的想法：
Susan的中心论点是：Those who oppose experimentation on animals do not properly value the preservation of human life.
而她辩驳Melvin时说即使用动物做实验是为了 human cleanliness, convenience, and beauty 也是合情合理，因为这些属于worthwhile human values
E说Susan没有指出support worthwhile human values 是否属于 preserves human lives
不知道说清楚了没
| 欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/) | Powered by Discuz! X3.3 |