标题: 一道逻辑演绎题 [打印本页] 作者: 寂寞的自由 时间: 2004-1-14 03:34 标题: 一道逻辑演绎题 10. Some who favor putting governmental enterprises into private hands suggest that conservation objectives would in general be better served if private environmental groups were put in charge of operating and financing the national park system, which is now run by the government.Which of the following, assuming that it is a realistic possibility, argues most strongly against the suggestion above? C-àA (A) Those seeking to abolish all restrictions on exploiting the natural resources of the parks might join the private environmental groups as members and eventually take over their leadership. (B) Private environmental groups might not always agree on the best ways to achieve conservation objectives. (C) If they wished to extend the park system, the private environmental groups might have to seek contributions from major donors and the general public. (D) There might be competition among private environmental groups for control of certain park areas. (E) Some endangered species, such as the California condor, might die out despite the best efforts of the private environmental groups, even if those groups are not hampered by insufficient resources.
正确答案是A，请大家给些思路和意见，谢谢作者: 寂寞的自由 时间: 2004-1-14 03:36
我的疑问是C为什么不对呢？谢谢大家作者: feizhou 时间: 2004-1-14 07:04
结论： conservation objectives would in general be better served
(A) Those seeking to abolish all restrictions on exploiting the natural resources of the parks might join the private environmental groups as members and eventually take over their leadership. 直接反对结论。
(C) If they wished to extend the park system, the private environmental groups might have to seek contributions from major donors and the general public. 无关。
作者: 寂寞的自由 时间: 2004-1-14 07:44
if private environmental groups were put in charge of operating and financing the national park system
但是MM，您看这个黑体字部分，直接说了是FINANCING啊！为什么就和C无关呢？作者: 寂寞的自由 时间: 2004-1-14 07:46
是不是IF是前提，而削弱必须要削弱结论，不能削弱前提这个角度来否定C呢？感谢大家作者: dorbear 时间: 2004-1-14 11:42
[face=Verdana]Try to think it this way.
(A) does't go against the conclusion, instead, it is against the approach of puting private environment group in charge by saying that it may not serve it purpose, considering part of the group and its leadership may be presided by those against environmental protection.
(C) is irrelevant, in that how the private enviornment group raise money to fund park system has no bearing on their function to serve its purpose. What would happen when they have to seek input from public and donators we really don't know and don't have to bother. If you think their capability is impaired by raising fund from outside, then you commit the fallacy of "take it for granted".