5. The museum's night security guard-maintains that the thieves who stole the portrait did not enter the museum at any point at or above ground level. Therefore, the thieves must have gained access to the museum from below ground level.
The flawed pattern of reasoning in the argument above is most similar to that in which one of the following?
(A) The rules stipulate the participants in the contest be judged on both form and accuracy. The eventual winner was judged highest in neither category , so there must be a third criterion that judges were free to invoke.
(B) The store's competitors claim that the store in selling off the shirts at those prices, neither made any profit nor broke even. Consequently, the store's customers must have been able to buy shirts there at less than the store's cost.
(C) If the census is to be believed, the percentage of men who are married is higher than the percentage of women who are married. Thus, the census must show a higher number of men than of women overall.
(D) The product label establishes that this insecticide is safe for both humans and pet. Therefore, the insecticide must also be safe for such wild mammals as deer and rabbits.
(E) As had generally been expected, not all questionnaires were sent in by the official deadline. It follows that plans must have been made for the processing of questionnaires received late.
原文犯的是什么错误？哪位帮着解释一下
position, T did not enter ... at any point or above ground level.
self-contradictary. any point---- including above and under.
B, neither made any profit nor broke even( 没卖出任何东西), so contradict to the saying that customers got a bargianed price.
解释得有点牵强，我觉得
“at or above ”是来修饰“at any point”的吧，表示在一楼或一楼向上的任一点；错误不在这里。
还请高手指点啊
确实如此啊，斑竹的解释似乎不那么对啊，还请nn们指点迷津sorry, I misremembered the exact Chinese meaning for " break even" that means no profit gain and no lose of money. However, the logical fallacy pattern still remains the same in this question. Any points include above and under ground. not break even includes neither profit gain and nor money lose. So, how could people buy product in a less than cost price, which is same to lose of money to the store?
a very simple question.
版主的意思是前后矛盾喽～～可我觉得at any point at or above 是指地面以上的任何地方都不可能，并不是说所有地方都不可能啊．还有对于b的理解，我认为the store in selling off the shirts at those prices, neither made any profit nor broke even意思是：如果成本是６元，那么这家商店不会以高于６元的价格（made any profit ）或６元（broke even不赚不赔的价格我认为就是成本价）来出售，那么当然就可能是以低于６元出售了．事实上，我是觉得原论证根本没错，b也是：不在上面和地面，当然在下面；不高于或等于成本价，当然是低于．请大家指点下，或许我的思路有问题？先谢谢啦
同意楼上的理解，至于论证的错误在哪里我也觉得挺困惑的，是不是犯了说法太绝对的错误？security guard自认为at any point at or above ground level已经防得滴水不漏，但是实际上还是有可能有安全漏洞的，要不那些外国大片是怎么拍出来的啊：）
请nn指教啊：）
原文的逻辑错误在于：从人的证词（甚至是有利益冲突CONFLICT OF INTEREST的人：security guard和competitors都有利益冲突）得出一个肯定性的结论。在法律上，这个人的证词的证明力实际要受到质疑的，特别是他有CONFLICT OF INTEREST时，比如他是否偷懒（睡觉啦），是否失职等等，从而削弱他的证词的证明力，导致结论的不肯定，所以单靠人证是无法得出肯定性结论的，除非有其他证据辅助或排出其它可能性。B也一样是这种推理错误。这个店的competors这麽说的动机是什麽？说的话是否可信？都要受到质疑。在没有被CHALLENGE前是不能得出肯定性结论的。
实际这题是典型的法律思维错误。看来LSAT是为培养律师准备的。
实际这题是典型的法律思维错误。看来LSAT是为培养律师准备的。
啊……
不过凭感觉蒙对了。那这题就放过去吧
The logical flaw is that weather the museum's night security guard is worth to trust. In the stimulus, out conclusion is directly draw from museum's night security guard. What if the guard did not provide the information or he lie about it.
You can find the same logical flaw in answer B. Is the store's competitors telling the right thing? Probability not since they have conflict of interest.
| 欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/) | Powered by Discuz! X3.3 |