ChaseDream

标题: [求助]LSAT-2-4-6 [打印本页]

作者: ymxl4611 时间: 2004-12-8 17:08
标题: [求助]LSAT-2-4-6

6. Although this bottle is labeled “vinegar,” no fizzing occurred when some of the liquid in it was added to powder from this box labeled “baking soda.” But when an acidic liquid such as vinegar is added to baking soda the resulting mixture fizzes, so this bottle clearly has been mislabeled.

A flaw in the reasoning in the argument above is that this argument

(A) ignores the possibility that the bottle contained an acidic liquid other than vinegar

(B) fails to exclude an alternative explanation for the observed effect

(D) does not take into account the fact that scientific principles can be definitively tested only under controlled laboratory conditions

(E) assumes that the fact of a labeling error is proof of an intention to deceive

答案是(B) WHY?

在此预先说声:"谢谢,不胜感激!"

作者: lawyer_1 时间: 2004-12-9 09:52
原文的不冒泡不一定是Bottle中不是vinegar，也可能是因为 box 中的powder不是baking soda，即结论没有排除这种可能性。即B

作者: Bensontuo 时间: 2019-8-12 20:12

ymxl4611 发表于 2004-12-8 17:08
6.     Although this bottle is labeled “vinegar,” no fizzing occurred when som ...

Spot the question type: Method of the reasoning - flaw

Core of the argument:

Well, the simple flaw here is, what if the baking soda is not baking soda ?

A. Not relevant

B. That alternative explanation could be - box does not contained any baking soda.

C. Not relevant

D. Not relevant

E. ( Proof of an intention to deceive !!!! ??? ) No

欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/)