11.Gloria: Those who advocate tuition tax credits for parents whose children attend private schools maintain that people making no use of a government service should not be forced to pay for it. Yet those who choose to buy bottled water rather than drink water from the local supply are not therefore exempt from paying taxes to maintain the local water supply.
Roger: Your argument is illogical. Children are required by law to attend school. Since school attendance is a matter not of choice, but of legal requirement, it is unfair for the government to force some parents to pay for it twice.
Which of the following responses by Gloria would best refute Roger’s charge that her argument is illogical?
(A) Although drinking water is not required by law, it is necessary for all people, and therefore my analogy is appropriate.
(B) Those who can afford the tuition at a high-priced private school can well bear the same tax burden as those whose children attend public schools.
(C) If tuition tax credits are granted, the tax burden on parents who choose public schools will rise to an intolerable level.
(D) The law does not say that parents must send their children to private schools, only that the children must attend some kind of school, whether public or private.（A）
(E) Both bottled water and private schools are luxury items, and it is unfair that some citizens should be able to afford them while others cannot.
我有几个问题：
1.roger 反对gloria，他用law是为了针对gloria类比中的哪个漏洞？
2.roger：Your argument is illogical. Children are required by law to attend school. Since school attendance is a matter not of choice, but of legal requirement, it is unfair for the government to force some parents to pay for it twice.他的因果关系，我弄不明白。怎么回pay twice呢？
3.我开始选的D。看到答案后才明白他是在考错误的类比关系。
但我觉得D也可以削弱roger的话，大家认为呢？
1. 个人认为，roger是想驳斥gloria的类比，认为其不可比。R说上学不像一个matter or of choice，是一个legal requirement，而饮水则属于一种matter or of choice。所以不可比
2. 所谓pay twice，是因为学生家长要交私立学校的钱，同时还要交政府的钱，则是双分。
3. D并没有直接反驳R呀，R是批驳G的类比，那反驳就要从类比入手。
1. 个人认为，roger是想驳斥gloria的类比，认为其不可比。R说上学不像一个matter or of choice，是一个legal requirement，而饮水则属于一种matter or of choice。所以不可比
2. 所谓pay twice，是因为学生家长要交私立学校的钱，同时还要交政府的钱，则是双分。
3. D并没有直接反驳R呀，R是批驳G的类比，那反驳就要从类比入手。
我觉得D确实驳斥了呀。1）为什么从类比出发的驳斥才是直接驳斥呢？2）即使只有从类比出发的驳斥才是直接驳斥，题目又没有要求一定要直接驳斥呀。呵呵，有点像道逻辑题。
题干最后一句话 it is unfair for the government to force some parents to pay for it twice，我觉得就是D的很好的驳斥点。D说，law又没有规定家长must 送孩子去私立学校。不就是说government didn't force parents to send to private school, so government didn't force parents to pay for it twice吗？
期望讨论！
同意lawyer的分析，本题要求选项能refute R’s charge that G’s
argument is illogical, 而R指责G’s argument
illogical的核心就是指出了G的类比的缺陷，即water和education不同。A指出其实两者是相同的，所以最好的反驳了R的指责。D只是指出了R所称的legal requirement的含义不准确，但即使legal requirement的含义有问题也不等于water和education就可比了。因此从反驳的角度D没有A好。
Gloria:
Those who advocate tuition tax credits for parents whose children attend private schools maintain that people making no use of a government service should not be forced to pay for it.
Yet those who choose to buy bottled water rather than drink water from the local supply are not therefore exempt from paying taxes to maintain the local water supply.
我感觉这句类比逻辑明显不对
因为没有得到证政府的服务，所以上私立学校学生的家长无须交学费税
但是喝瓶装水而非当地水的人还是要付当地水税
谁来帮我分析一下？
答案是什么？
我的答案：A
G观点
不使用公共设施，不缴税
R观点
因为法律要求上学，非选择，要缴税，但不缴两次。
题目：支持G 反对
R
B/C很容易排除
E 反对G排除
还是选择，支持
R
故答案
A
这道题目太难了，请牛牛指导！
关键是思考的方向是什么？
Gloria:
Those who advocate tuition tax credits for parents whose children attend private schools maintain that people making no use of a government service should not be forced to pay for it.
Yet those who choose to buy bottled water rather than drink water from the local supply are not therefore exempt from paying taxes to maintain the local water supply.
我感觉这句类比逻辑明显不对
因为没有得到证政府的服务，所以上私立学校学生的家长无须交学费税
但是喝瓶装水而非当地水的人还是要付当地水税
谁来帮我分析一下？
G是为了反驳上私立学校不用缴税的观点举出的例子。
那些子女上私立学校不想缴税的人认为，因为没有用到公共教育资源，所以就不应该缴税给公共教育买单。G举了个反例，喝桶装水不喝自来水的人照样还不是给当地的自来水厂缴税的。
R是为了反驳，说明其类比不正确。
A强调了其类比是正确的，所以反驳了R
D没有削弱R，R说的是 “上学”不是选择是强制。D说的是 “上私立学校”是选择不是强制。讨论的对象不一样。
我承认A的正确性
但我还是认为D应该也对，Roger说上学是强制要求的，和买瓶装水不具有可比性。D选项说法律没有强制人们上公立还是私立学校，人们有选择的权利，（就像买瓶装水一样，你可以buy bottled water也可以drink water from the local supply），实际上也就是说明了类比的正确性。
也许选择A的原因是其比较直接了当，而且后半句话说明了 "and therefore my analogy is appropriate"。
如果选D的话：
G：那些上私立学校的认为他们没使用公共财产，所以不应该缴税。但喝瓶装水而不喝自来水需要缴纳税费呀。（所以你上私立学校也应该额外缴税）
R：你的立论有误。上学是法律规定的，所以迫使那些上私立学校的人交双份税收很不公平。
G：法律只规定上学，又没规定你上私立还是公立。（所以你选择私立的话你就交那双份税收吧，就像喝水虽然是必须的，但没人规定你喝瓶装水还是自来水，所以那些人既然选择喝瓶装水而不是免费的自来水，那就让他们自愿承担额外的税收。）
如果选A的话：
G：那些上私立学校的认为他们没使用公共财产，所以不应该缴税。但喝瓶装水而不喝自来水需要缴纳税费呀。（所以你上私立学校也应该额外缴税）
R：你的立论有误。上学是法律规定的，所以迫使那些上私立学校的人交双份税收很不公平。（但是喝水又没人逼你，所以没有可比性，你重新论证吧）
G：我的类比是正确的，因为喝水也是必须的。（但人们喝免费的自来水就完全可以满足生存需求，如果你愿意付高价买瓶装水那也没人拦你。上学也是一样的，如果你不愿意去免费的公立学校那你就乖乖的支付额外的税收上私立呗。）
所以日常生活中两个人拌嘴的话说A或者说D都是殊途同归的，但这里的区别主要在于对R言外之意的理解，R的反驳实际上有两层意思：1 拿喝水和上学类比是不行的，2 上学因为是强制性的，（有些人被强制上了私立学校），所以不应该让这些人交双倍学费。如此看来A选项是抓住了更大的前提来反驳。
我觉得这题光读懂题干就很难，那个tuition tax credits我就一直不知道什么意思，所以我做题时根本不知道G是支持免学费税还是支持加学费税或是支持免瓶装水税...
顶楼上，说的透彻
这题真是比较难
(D) The law does not say that parents must send their children to private schools, only that the children must attend some kind of school, whether public or private. f
反了，这似乎正好证明了school attendance is of legal requirement
| 欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/) | Powered by Discuz! X3.3 |