标题: 为什么这个逻辑是错的 [打印本页] 作者: 女王的肥皂 时间: 2012-6-14 11:32 标题: 为什么这个逻辑是错的 Driver: My friends say I will one day have an accident because I drive my sports car recklessly. But I have done some research, and apparently minivans and larger sedans have very low accident rates compared to sports cars. So trading my sports car in for a minivan would lower my risk of having an accident. The reasoning in the driver's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that this argument (A) infers a cause from a mere correlation (B) relies on a sample that is too narrow (C) misinterprets evidence that a result is likely as evidence that the result is certain (D) mistakes a condition sufficient for bringing about a result for a condition necessary for doing so (E) relies on a source that is probably not well-informed Look at this argument: I drive car reckless, so I will have an accident one day. Minivans have low accident rates compared to sports cars. Conclusion: minivans will lower my risk of having an accident. Still again, I think I can infer this conclusion based on the information provided.作者: 上邪 时间: 2012-6-14 11:41
because it ignores other possibilities the conclusion means changing the car to big ones is the only way to avoid car crash... 狒狒上好像有蛮多这种题的 额 什么因为天热 所以大家都用吃雪糕降温 所以只要吃雪糕就能降温 因为吃A药能让大家不生病 所以只要吃药都能不生病 …………0 0作者: 女王的肥皂 时间: 2012-6-14 12:46
不是呀，我觉得论述说的是 A--> B , 但是没有强调 只有A -->B作者: fiq5659613 时间: 2012-6-14 18:15
我觉得Minivan和large senda事故率低的原因可能是他们的司机经过特殊的培训，不会drive recklessly。所以错误在于misinterprets evidence作者: 女王的肥皂 时间: 2012-6-15 15:47
嗯