ChaseDream

标题: lsat test7/s4/q11 [打印本页]

作者: mzyzhu 时间: 2003-5-10 23:30
标题: lsat test7/s4/q11
Q11. Scientific research at a certain university was supported in part by an annual grant from a major foundation. When the university' s physics department embarked on weapons-related research, the foundation, which has a purely humanitarian mission, threatened to cancel its grant. The university then promised that none of the foundation' s money would be used for the weapons research, whereupon the foundation withdrew its threat, concluding that the weapons research would not benefit from the foundation' s grants.

Which one of the following describes a flaw in the reasoning underlying the foundation's conclusion?

(A) It overlooks the possibility that the availability of the foundation's money for humanitarian uses will allow the university to redirect other funds from humanitarian uses to weapons research.

(C) It overlooks the possibility that the university made its promise specifically in order to induce the foundation to withdraw its threat.

The answer is A, yet I think C is better than A.

After analyzing A, I am not convinced by its validity. The answer says although the Physics Department (PD) may not use grant from this foundation for weapon-related research, PD properly do so by appropriation from other resources.

Even the foundation has understood what PD will do as described in answer A. Can the foundation threaten to withdraw unless PD swear to refrain from the ANY contingent projects in the future related weapons? The answer to this question will need further information, which is not available. So we cannot certain the results. Thus answer A is not, at least, the perfect answer.

Then Let’s read answer C. C infers that PD refraining from weapon-related research is may not its genuine intention, and that PD PROBABLY will convert to weapon-related research once the foundation is secure. If PD do so, then it shows the foundation is credulous on PD’s swear, thus it’s a flaw.

In sum, C is better than A because we can infer C from the passage without another assumption in mirage.

What do you guys think about?

作者: zenger 时间: 2005-8-12 22:34

我觉得说假话（做伪证）不是LSAT所考虑的情况。可以接受不确定来源，误解/误道等，但不能接受不遵守诺言。

还是选择字面没有问题，但隐含特定意思的选择更好。

当然，这里我最想表达的其实是：你的arguement非常好。我被打动了。行文流畅，结构完整。漂亮！

作者: ethyl 时间: 2005-8-12 23:34
大哥，这么老的帖子都被你翻出来re，佩服佩服。。。

作者: lilyofvalley 时间: 2005-8-13 05:54

Actually, I was confused by this question as well, and C was a very tempting answer.

Then, on second thought, A is right. If we go back to the passage, we will find that the university is supported "in part" by the foundation's grant. Then what happened was that the university only promised not to use the "foundation's money" to support weapons research. The passage thereby concluded that "the weapons research won't benefit from the foundation's grant."

There is a gap between "not to use the foundation's money" and "the weapons research won't benefit from it." Namely, the university could use the foundations' money to support humanitarian research, while diverting its own funding, originally for humanitarian research, to support weapons research. As a result, the weapons research can still benefit from the foundation's support, only "indirectly." And that's what A is saying.

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