95. Scientific research that involves international collaboration has produced papers of greater influence, as measured by the number of times a paper is cited in subsequent papers, than has research without any collaboration. Papers that result from international collaboration are cited an average of seven times, whereas papers with single authors are cited only three times on average. This difference shows that research projects conducted by international research teams are of greater importance than those conducted by single researchers.
Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?
A. Prolific writers can inflate the number of citations they receive by citing themselves in subsequent papers.
B. It is possible to ascertain whether or not a paper is the product of international collaboration by determining the number of citations it has received.
C. The number of citations a paper receives is a measure of the importance of the research it reports.
D. The collaborative efforts of scientists who are citizens of the same country do not produce papers that are as important as papers that are produced by international collaboration.
E. International research teams tend to be more generously funded than are single researchers.
In my view, the reasoning in this argument is that:
Papers that result from international collaboration are cited an average of seven times, whereas papers with single authors are cited only three times on average.à research projects conducted by international research teams are of greater importance than those conducted by single researchers.
The hidden assumption is that we can evaluate the importance of research projects by the number of times a paper is cited in subsequent papers.
Obviously, C is the best answer.
A. is out of scope. We can also have good reasons to doubt whether the prolific writers is representative enough to reflect the whole situation of the single authors.
B. the same mistake. Even we can ascertain whether or not a paper is the product of international collaboration by determining the number of citations it has received. The preceding assumption have no effect on the conclusion.
C. is the best answer.
D. is absurd. We have not known anything about the domestic or the alien authors.
E. is out of scope too. There is nothing relevant to fund in this argument.
上面的解释是没错，可是C答案明显是原文第一句（highlight）的改写啊……假设题这样也行吗？
这很正常啊
请看我的一个回复
道理和这题一样的
http://forum.chasedream.com/dispbbs.asp?BoardID=24&ID=402273&replyID=&skin=0
这很正常啊
请看我的一个回复
道理和这题一样的
http://forum.chasedream.com/dispbbs.asp?BoardID=24&ID=402273&replyID=&skin=0
哦我看了…果然是NN~ 但我还是觉得那题和这题有点区别
我是这样想的，假设题的答案是必须能取非削弱的，胖子那题的取非是胖人不恢复原来的卡路里摄入量，从而来削弱胖人的体重会反弹，可这题如果取非,the numer of...is not a measure 的话，不是与原题里的事实相反了么？
所以还是不太明白啊
哦我看了…果然是NN~ 但我还是觉得那题和这题有点区别
我是这样想的，假设题的答案是必须能取非削弱的，胖子那题的取非是胖人不恢复原来的卡路里摄入量，从而来削弱胖人的体重会反弹，可这题如果取非,the numer of...is not a measure 的话，不是与原题里的事实相反了么？
所以还是不太明白啊
相反不相反并不重要 重要的是逻辑推理的完整性
条件：只有有阳光，地球才有生命，结论：一旦没阳光，地球就没生命
以上的推理是完整的吧 但如你所说 没阳光是不可能的 违背客观现实的 你要weaken我，可以反驳我推理存在的前提，但我推理过程是没有漏洞的 你只能否定我前提事实的正确性 你不能否认我用“一旦没阳光”作为我的推理的前提条件的逻辑正确性
要记住 逻辑推理过程自身的正确性 和其结论的正确性没有必然关系
比如上诉的例子 一旦没阳光，地球就没生命 这个推理本身是正确的，但结论是违背客观现实的
再举一个例子 因为天气很好 所以你是女生 这样的推理谁都会觉得莫名其妙吧 但我的结论是正确的
相反不相反并不重要 重要的是逻辑推理的完整性
条件：只有有阳光，地球才有生命，结论：一旦没阳光，地球就没生命
以上的推理是完整的吧 但如你所说 没阳光是不可能的 违背客观现实的 你要weaken我，可以反驳我推理存在的前提，但我推理过程是没有漏洞的 你只能否定我前提事实的正确性 你不能否认我用“一旦没阳光”作为我的推理的前提条件的逻辑正确性
要记住 逻辑推理过程自身的正确性 和其结论的正确性没有必然关系
比如上诉的例子 一旦没阳光，地球就没生命 这个推理本身是正确的，但结论是违背客观现实的
再举一个例子 因为天气很好 所以你是女生 这样的推理谁都会觉得莫名其妙吧 但我的结论是正确的
NN的意思我大概能明白，但还是觉得这种问法很奇怪，就好比说题目里说因为有阳光所以有生命，问作者假设了什么，答案是有阳光…… 总感觉怪怪的，觉得一般假设应该是作者没有提到的
| 欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/) | Powered by Discuz! X3.3 |