大全-A-15
Alba: I don’t intend to vote for Senator Frank in the next election. She is not a strong supporter of the war against crime.
Tam: But Senator Frank sponsored the latest anticrime law passed by the Senate.
Alba: If Senator Frank sponsored it, it can’t be a very strong anticrime law.
Which of the following identifies the most serious logical flaw in Alba’s reasoning?
(A) The facts she presents do not support her conclusion that Senator Frank is soft on crime.
(B) She assumes without proof that crime is the most important issue in the upcoming election.
(C) She argues in a circle, using an unsupported assertion to dismiss conflicting evidence.
(D) She attacks Senator Frank on personal grounds rather than on he merit as a political leader.
(E) In deciding not to vote for Senator Frank, she fails to consider issues other than crime.
C中的argue in a circle应该怎样理解？
自己顶一下！！
请NN们帮帮忙！！
帮你顶，我也想知道
应该就是循环论证，用自己的一个尚未证明的假设，来作论据。也就是说，他的第二句话是基于他第一句话正确的基础上的，而第一句话也仅仅是他的一个assersion。
谢谢dhxyMM和bigpGG！！
偶明白了
原文：A:我不支持F,因为她不强烈的反对犯罪。
T:最近通过的反对犯罪的法律是由F发起的。
A:F支持的反对犯罪的法律就是不强烈的。
翻译不太顺，不过可以看出来A就是在循环论证。A基于自己说的第一句话推出了第二句话的结论。
(B)She assumes without proof that crime is the most important issue in the upcoming election.她（没有证据地）假定在未来的选举中犯罪是最重要的议题。她没有这样假定，她的意思只是在评价F时，她会考虑犯罪的问题。
(C) She argues in a circle, using an unsupported assertion to dismiss conflicting evidence.
(D) She attacks Senator Frank on personal grounds rather than on he merit as a political leader。没有人身攻击吧，可能口气比较casual,但一直只是在评价F的政治立场。
argue in circle:用循环论证法来辩论(先假设结论是前提的证据, 又利用前提去证明结论)
| 欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/) | Powered by Discuz! X3.3 |