Dr. A: The new influenza vaccine is useless at best and possibly dangerous. I would never use it on a patient.
Dr. B: But three studies published in the Journal of Medical Associates have rated that vaccine as unusually effective.
Dr. A: The studies must have been faulty because the vaccine is worthless.
In which of the following is the reasoning most similar to that of Dr. A?
(A) Three of my patients have been harmed by that vaccine during the past three weeks, so the vaccine is unsafe.
(B) Jerrold Jersey recommends this milk, and I don’t trust Jerrold Jersey, so I won’t buy this milk.
(C) Wingzz tennis balls perform best because they are far more effective than any other tennis balls.
(D) I’m buying Vim Vitamins. Doctors recommend them more often than they recommend any other vitamins, so Vim Vitamins must be good.
(E) Since University of Muldoon graduates score about 20 percent higher than average on the GMAT, Sheila Lee, a University of Muldoon graduate, will score about 20 percent higher than average when she takes the GMAT.
请教一下本题的推理？能理论一些最好
Dr A makes a logic error of circular reasoning:
A is true-->negative of A is not true because A is true.
答案不是A，我开始大概也犯了类似的错误，感觉此题的推理比较陌生。
既然不是 A 那就是 C 了。我也不明白。
B,D,E 是3段论推理，而原文是因果推理，所以 B,D,E 错。
up, up ...
因果推理本身不是逻辑错误，是没有因果关系，却说是因果关系等等才是逻辑错误。
原文Dr.A的推理：因为vaccine is worthless（useless），所以The studies must have been faulty ，这个研究就是rated that vaccine as unusually effective.即vaccine is uesless。结论和前提一样。故为循环论证错误。和C一样
如果我在鸡蛋里面挑骨头的话，还可以讲：
原文的假设中没有事实依据，而 A 是以事实作为论据的。
Dr. A: The new influenza vaccine is useless.
Dr. A: The studies must have been faulty because the vaccine is worthless.
你说它是循环论证也没错。我简单认为其为因果结构。
能不能再详细解释一下A的错误？感谢感谢。
因果推理本身不是逻辑错误，是没有因果关系，却说是因果关系等等才是逻辑错误。
原文Dr.A的推理：因为vaccine is worthless（useless），所以The studies must have been faulty ，这个研究就是rated that vaccine as unusually effective.即vaccine is uesless。结论和前提一样。故为循环论证错误。和C一样
我认为lawyer_1 这里有个错误：unusually effective 应该是非常有效的意思吧，而不是 useless
我认为lawyer_1 这里有个错误：unusually effective 应该是非常有效的意思吧，而不是 useless
"如果说A有逻辑错误，那是例子太少，没代表性。"
Normally, one case in a million practice is consider a pretty high profile. Here it says 3 cases in 3 weeks, although there is no number of practices, it is definitely Very High and is very significant.
我还是没明白为什么 A 错，再讲讲？
sigh, I still don't get it.
Anyway, Thanks Lawyer_1.
这道题, 我本来不会, 不过看了"跟LAWYER学逻辑”中的FLAW IN THE REASONING", 我很赞同lawyer的观点.不过有两个问题想请教lawyer: 1. circular reasoning 形式上看起来象因果倒置似的. 看完整的提干, 知道是circular reasoning, 但单看选项C却很象因果倒置, 两者怎么区分?
2. 选项B的逻辑错误是什么?是source argument吗?
如果我错的太离谱不用笑话我, 我的逻辑不是一般的差.
1。B确实是SOURCE ARGUMENT的逻辑错误。
2。因果倒置是原因变成了结果。循环论证是以你要证明的东西为前提。比如C，结论是BALLPERFORM最好，前提是BALL比其他BALL都有效。这个比其他都有效不就是最好吗。而因果倒置是：假如已经知道24上CD导致我考800分，某人说我考800分导致我上CD。将原因变成结果。
)
通过lawyer的点拨，我理解如下：
studies说疫苗有效－－Dr. A认为studies是错的－－也就是“疫苗无效”。studies是错的＝疫苗无效
题干中最后一句话：Dr. A：因为疫苗无效，所以studies是错的。
换言之：Dr. A：因为疫苗无效，所以疫苗无效。这样就和C等同了：因为比任何都好，所以是最好的。
（ 是个gap。）
great.
thaks all
看懂了题干是循环论证，但是C项没看明白
useless和worthless是同一个结论
但是C项的perform best和more effective than any other也是同一个结论吗？
那“我最高因为我比其他人都高”也算是循环论证么？
1
| 欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/) | Powered by Discuz! X3.3 |