ChaseDream

标题: lsat-3-4-17 [打印本页]

作者: icyeye 时间: 2005-2-19 17:55
标题: lsat-3-4-17
17. Zelda: Dr. Ladlow, a research psychologist, has convincingly demonstrated that his theory about the determinants of rat behavior generates consistently accurate predictions about how rats will perform in a maze On the basis of this evidence; Dr. Ladlow has claimed that his theory is irrefutably correct.

Anson: Then Dr. ladlow is not responsible psychologist. Dr. ladlow’s evidence does not conclusively prove that his theory is correct. Responsible psychologists always accept the possibility that new evidence will show that their theories are incorrect.

17. Which one of the following can be properly inferred from Anson’s argument?

(A) Dr. Ladlow’s evidence that his theory generates consistently accurate predictions about how rates will perform in a maze is inaccurate

(B) Psychologists who can derive consistently accurate predictions about how rats will perform in a maze from their theories cannot responsibly conclude that those theories cannot be disproved

(D) Responsible psychologists do not make predictions about how rats will perform in a maze

(E) Psychologists who accept the possibility that new evidence will show that their theories are incorrect are responsible psychologists.

b是原文中的同义改写，是吗？但是e不是也能从文中推出吗？

作者: dphxmg 时间: 2005-2-23 23:35

The people who think Answer E is right usually approve of the following reasoning:

不学三讲的干部都会贪污腐化，因此，dphxmg作为一个干部，他带头学三讲，所以他一定不会腐化堕落。

作者: icyeye 时间: 2005-2-24 01:01
我懂你的意思了。但我觉得有些区别：e是原文的一个否命题，而你举的例子是个逆命题。不过都在一个范畴内，所以让我开窍了：）谢谢！

作者: mage 时间: 2005-2-24 01:02

dphxmg, you are really good at chinese politics!

icyeye mm, you should grasp the basic concepts of necessary and sufficient conditions. That's very helpful for you to figure out lsat reasoning.

作者: icyeye 时间: 2005-2-24 01:20
Thanks for your suggestion. I will work hard.

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