21. Historian: We can learn about the medical history of individuals through chemical analysis of their hair. It is likely, for example, that Isaac Newton’s psychological problems were due to mercury poisoning; traces of mercury were found in his hair. Analysis is now being done on a lock of Beethoven’s hair. Although no convincing argument has shown that Beethoven ever had a venereal disease, some people hypothesize that venereal disease caused his deafness. Since mercury was commonly ingested in Beethoven’s time to treat venereal disease, if researchers find a trace of mercury in his hair, we can conclude that this hypothesis is correct.
Which one of the following is an assumption on which the historian’s argument depends?
A. None of the mercury introduced into the body can be eliminated.
B. Some people in Beethoven’s time did not ingest mercury.
C. Mercury is an effective treatment for venereal disease.
D. Mercury poisoning can cause deafness in people with venereal disease.
E. Beethoven suffered from psychological problems of the same severity as
这个毛病传来传去的，晕，希望大家告诉解题思路，谢谢！
结论是we can conclude that this hypothesis is correct
hypothesis是venereal disease caused deafness
已知是deafness和mercury treats venereal disease
所以要有桥梁把mercury扯进去，推出venereal disease caused deafness
我觉得选D答案是什么
原文推理：因为那时人们用M去治性病，所以如果发现头发中有M，就知某某有性病（性病导致耳聋）。隐含的假设是没有别的原因导致头发中有M。B排除其他原因导致头发有M，故为假设。将B取非： All （注意不是SOME） people in Beethoven’s time ingested mercury。则说明头发中的M并非治性病导致，而是吃M导致，原文结论不能成立。
原文是想推Beethoven had a venereal disease
原文推理：因为那时人们用M去治性病，所以如果发现头发中有M，就知某某有性病（性病导致耳聋）。隐含的假设是没有别的原因导致头发中有M。B排除其他原因导致头发有M，故为假设。将B取非： All （注意不是SOME） people in Beethoven’s time ingested mercury。则说明头发中的M并非治性病导致，而是吃M导致，原文结论不能成立。
我在选B的时候一直在想，为什么要用some呢，而不是用all。如果用all的话，这个assumption就非常完美了。
现在看来，还是对assumption的理解有分歧。如果说assumption是必要条件的话，这个some也很奇怪呀。要是some里面不包括贝多芬怎么办？还是说assumption只能通过取非来确定正确与否？
原文是想推Beethoven had a venereal disease
是呀。这个推导是这样的：性病导致耳聋，又因为用M去治性病。所以如果发现头发中有M，就能推导出耳聋。
这中间的assumption是，平常没事不会吃M（排除导致M出现的它因）。
原文推理：因为那时人们用M去治性病，所以如果发现头发中有M，就知某某有性病（性病导致耳聋）。隐含的假设是没有别的原因导致头发中有M。B排除其他原因导致头发有M，故为假设。将B取非：
All （注意不是SOME） people in Beethoven’s time ingested mercury。则说明头发中的M并非治性病导致，而是吃M导致，原文结论不能成立。
我觉得lawyer原文的推理有一个问题。就是默认了hypothesis（性病导致耳聋）。段子最后说：如果发现M 就说明HY是对的。
原文推理：人们用M去治性病，如果发现M，就知道有性病。这是对的。按B的说法，只能推到有性病而已，而假设的还要证明是性病导致耳聋啊。B根本推不到。是我理解有问题吗？
段子最后明明是说，有M，假设就是对的。但是不是把假设作为一个premise提供给你的啊！
请指教。谢谢
21. Historian: We can learn about the medical history of individuals through chemical analysis of their hair. It is likely, for example, that Isaac Newton’s psychological problems were due to mercury poisoning; traces of mercury were found in his hair. Analysis is now being done on a lock of Beethoven’s hair. Although no convincing argument has shown that Beethoven ever had a venereal disease, some people hypothesize that venereal disease caused his deafness. Since mercury was commonly ingested in Beethoven’s time to treat venereal disease, if researchers find a trace of mercury in his hair, we can conclude that this hypothesis is correct.
Which one of the following is an assumption on which the historian’s argument depends?
A.
None of the mercury introduced into the body can be eliminated.
B.
Some people in Beethoven’s time did not ingest mercury.
C.
Mercury is an effective treatment for venereal disease.
D.
Mercury poisoning can cause deafness in people with venereal disease.
E.
Beethoven suffered from psychological problems of the same severity as
B吧 结论，如果发现水映，就是性病导致耳聋，补出逻辑连 贝多芬就有病
B。排除了当时所有人民都有服用水银的爱好，证明应该是得病才有水银，可以用加not来反正是个好答案的长相阿
D.水银是耳聋原因，但是原文hypothesize that venereal disease caused his deafness 反正有点不对
B 倒是可以推出因为得病才用水银，并由次推出Beethoven可能得过性病。 但是题干里没说用了水银就一定能导致耳聋呀？
D 却搭了这个桥。 把水银中毒和耳聋联系起来了。
我知道feifei135的正确答案是B。但是实在是觉得D更好。 请NN指教吧。
situation:
some people hypothesize that venereal disease caused his deafness=>
it is possible that the venereal disease caused his deafness
mercury was commonly ingested to treat venereal disease=>
he might ingested mercury to treat venereal disease
argument:
if mercury is found in his hair, we can conclude that venereal caused his deafness
reasoning:
what can a trace of mercury in his hair mean? what if mercury was also ingested to treat other diseases? in that case, a trace of mercury cannot indicate venereal disease. to reach the researchers' conclusion, an assumption is needed here to assure that mercury can only be ingested to treat venereal disease and for no other purpose.
to negate choice B: all people in Beethoven's time ingest mercury. it this is the case, then a trace of mercury in hair will become meaningless, thus the argument is weakened.
原文推理：因为那时人们用M去治性病，所以如果发现头发中有M，就知某某有性病（性病导致耳聋）。隐含的假设是没有别的原因导致头发中有M。B排除其他原因导致头发有M，故为假设。将B取非：
All （注意不是SOME） people in Beethoven’s time ingested mercury。则说明头发中的M并非治性病导致，而是吃M导致，原文结论不能成立。
将B取非应该是：1，Some people in Beethoven’s time did not ingest mercury（去掉not）
or 2.All people in Beethoven’s time did not ingest mercury。（将some换成all）
如果是第二种，那正好和lawyer要表达的意思相反吧?
将B取非应该是：1，Some people in Beethoven’s time did not ingest mercury（去掉not）
or 2.All people in Beethoven’s time did not ingest mercury。（将some换成all）
如果是第二种，那正好和lawyer要表达的意思相反吧?
想不明白
A. None of the mercury introduced into the body can be eliminated.
这个选项为什么错呢？
如果身体里的Mercury会消失了。那就算贝多芬用过Mercury也查不出来呀，所有要有这个用过M后身体里永远保留的前提，不是吗？
B. Some people in Beethoven’s time did not ingest mercury.
我觉得是废话，哪个时代的人会全都去ingest mercury？只有有病的才去。
我认为B是weaken，因为我可以理解为有些人等了性病但是也没有去ingest mercury，贝多芬就有可能是其中一个。
艾。。。。。。。。就是理解不了lawyer他们的解释，谁来帮帮我？
我一开始选d
up
| 欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/) | Powered by Discuz! X3.3 |