The public in the United States has in the past been conditioned to support a substantial defense budget by the threat of confrontation with the Eastern bloc. Now that that threat is dissolving, along with the Eastern bloc itself, it is doubtful whether the public can be persuaded to support an adequate defense budget.
Which one of the following indicates a weakness in the position expressed above?
(A) It presupposes that public opinion can be manipulated indefinitely, without the public’s becoming aware of that manipulation.
(B) It refers to past and present events that do not have a causal connection with public support of the budget.
(C) It assumes as fact what it seeks to establish by reasoning.
(D) It fails to give any reason for the judgment it reaches.
(E) It hinges on the term “adequate,” the precise meaning of which requires reevaluation in the new context
为何选E，感觉这个错误并不明显，虽然看了答案也觉得有理，但做这种题总感觉很没把握。
For this type of question, the "process of elimination" is the best way to do it.
A: there is no such presupposition
B: this sentence is confusing. the argument does refer to the past and present event.But there is causal connection between the events and public support of the budget. Moreover, The argument is concerned about the adequacy of the publci support. Whether the public will support the budget or not is not the issue.
c: there is no such circular reasoning
d:the argument does give a reason for its conclusion, i.e., a changed circumstance.
有理，我也如此认为。不愧是斑竹，感谢辛勤劳动啊
可否翻译一下题干的意思?
小弟我怎么认为本题的错误在于Ａ－－－＞Ｂ而后又说了ＮＯＴ Ｂ－－－－＞ＮＯＴ Ａ呢？？／？？？？？
Ａ（ＴＨＲＥＡＴ） Ｂ（ＳＵＰＰＯＲＴ），之后 说 ＮＯＴ Ａ（没有威胁）－－－＞ＮＯＴ Ｂ（不支持）
小弟我怎么认为本题的错误在于Ａ－－－＞Ｂ而后又说了ＮＯＴ Ｂ－－－－＞ＮＯＴ Ａ呢？？／？？？？？
Ａ（ＴＨＲＥＡＴ） Ｂ（ＳＵＰＰＯＲＴ），之后 说 ＮＯＴ Ａ（没有威胁）－－－＞ＮＯＴ Ｂ（不支持）
同意lawyer_1的说法，这题是由于一个新词andequate对原词substantial的替代导致推理出现缺陷。
另外题目并没有a-->b, not a-->not b。因为最后一句说的是“it is doubtful whether...”所以关于not a-->not b是不是成立作者自己也不知道。
| 欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/) | Powered by Discuz! X3.3 |