lsat 8-1-3,13,17

lll123 · 发表于 2003-9-26 10:33:00

(1) Citizen of Mooresville: Mooresville's current city council is having a ruinous effect on municipal finances. Since a majority of the incumbents are running for reelection, I am going to campaign against all these incumbents in the upcoming city council election. The only incumbent I will support and vote for is the one who represents my own neighborhood, because she has the experience necessary to ensure that our neighborhoods interests are served. If everyone in Mooresville would follow my example, we could substantially change the council's membership.
Assuming that each citizen of Mooresville is allowed to vote only for a city council representative from his or her own neighborhood, for the council's membership to be changed substantially, it must be true that
(A) at least some other voters in Mooresville do not make the same exception for their own incumbent in the upcoming election
(B) most of the eligible voters in Mooresville vote in the upcoming election
(C) few of the incumbents on the Mooresville city council have run for reelection in previous elections
(D) all of the seats on the Mooresville city council are filled by incumbents whose terms are expiring
(E) none of the cha1lengers in the upcoming election for seats on Mooresville's city council are better able to serve the interests of their neighborhoods than were the incumbents
answer:a
I can’t understand the meaning of a, why not b?

(2) Because some student demonstrations protesting his scheduled appearance have resulted in violence, the president of the Imperialist Society has been prevented from speaking about politics on campus by the dean of student affairs. Yet to deny anyone the unrestricted freedom to speak is to threaten everyone's right to free expression. Hence the dean's decision has threatened everyone's right to free expression.
The pattern of reasoning displayed above is most closely paralleled in which one of the following?
(A) Dr. Pacheco saved a child's life by performing emergency surgery. But surgery rarely involves any risk to the surgeon. Therefore, if an act is not heroic unless it requires the actor to take some risk. Dr. Pacheco's surgery was not heroic.
(B) Because anyone who performs an act of heroism acts altruistically rather than selfishly, a society that rewards heroism encourages altruism rather than pure self-interest.
(C) In order to rescue a drowning child, Isabel jumped into a freezing river. Such acts of heroism performed to save the Life of one enrich the lives of all. Hence. Isabel's action enriched the lives of all.
(D) Fire fighters are often expected to perform heroically under harsh conditions. But no one is ever required to act heroically. Hence, fire fighters are often expected to perform actions they are not required to perform.
(E) Acts of extreme generosity are usually above and beyond the call of duty. Therefore. most acts of extreme generosity are heroic, since all actions that are above and beyond the call of duty are heroic
answer:c 我不明白这道题的推理模式，看哪个都象答案？

(3) Biographer: Arnold's belief that every offer of assistance on the part of his colleagues was a disguised attempt to make him look inadequate and that no expression of congratulations on his promotion should be taken at face value may seem irrational, in fact, this belief was a consequence of his early experiences with an admired older sister who always made fun of his ambitions and achievements. In light of this explanation, therefore, Arnold's stubborn belief that his colleagues were duplicitous emerges as clearly justified.
The flawed reasoning in the biographer's argument is most similar to that in which one of the following?
(A) The fact that top executives generally have much larger vocabularies than do their subordinates explains why Sheldon's belief, instilled in him during his childhood, that developing a large vocabulary is the way to gel to the top in the world of business is completely justified.
(B) Emily suspected that apples are unhealthy ever since she almost choked to death while eating an apple when she was a child. Now, evidence that apples treated with certain pesticides can be health hazards shows that Emily's long-held belief is fully justified.
(C) As a child. Joan was severely punished whenever she played with her father's prize Siamese cat. Therefore, since this information makes her present belief that cats are not good pets completely understandable, that belief is justified.
(D) Studies show that when usually well-behaved children become irritable, they often exhibit symptoms of viral infections the next day. The suspicion, still held by many adults, that misbehavior must always be paid for is thus both explained and justified.
(E) Sumayia's father and mother were both concert pianists, and as a child. Sumayia knew several other people trying to make careers as musicians. Thus Sumayia's opinion that her friend Anthony lacks the drive to be a successful pianist is undoubtedly justified.
Answer :C, I CHOICE E，这题的推理漏洞在哪儿?

（4）From a magazine article: Self-confidence is a dangerous virtue: it often degenerates into the vice of arrogance. The danger of arrogance is evident to all who care to look.（ How much more humane the twentieth century would have been without the arrogant self-confidence of a Hitler or a Stalin）
后半句什么意思？

dorbear · 发表于 2003-9-27 04:12:00

lsat 8-I-3：每个选民只能决定自己社区（Neighborhood）议员的去留，如果他们都象发言的人一样保留自己社区的现任议员，那么整个议会组成不会有任何变化。（A）是答案，但不具有充分性。（B) 无关，如果他们投现任议员，再多的人去投票也无济于事。

lsat 8-I-13：这是以前学过的“稻草人（Straw Man）”逻辑模型: 即将一个观点无限上纲到已经背离原观点的真实含义；然后将对扭曲后观点的定性，强加在原来的观点上面。明白这一点，从选项中再找出来一个“稻草人”就行了。（C）

lsat 8-I-17：又是一个Parallel_Flaw;　逻辑模式是“Two Wrongs Make a Right”, 即用一个错误来解释另外一个错误，使其具有合理性，注意这两个错误之间必须相关联。只有(C)　才是答案。

lsat 8-II-5：如果Ｈ＆Ｓ不那么狂妄，那么２０世纪的人类会更充满祥和。

[此贴子已经被作者于2003-9-27 4:36:51编辑过]

Across · 发表于 2004-3-4 03:20:00

lsat 8-I-13：这是以前学过的“稻草人（Straw Man）”逻辑模型: 即将一个观点无限上纲到已经背离原观点的真实含义；然后将对扭曲后观点的定性，强加在原来的观点上面。明白这一点，从选项中再找出来一个“稻草人”就行了。（C）

could give us more links on this Straw Man logic example???

thanks

ecsniffer · 发表于 2004-3-4 20:10:00

Fallacy: Straw Man

Description of Straw Man

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

Person A has position X.
Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
Person B attacks position Y.
Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.

Examples of Straw Man

Prof. Jones: "The university just cut our yearly budget by $10,000."
Prof. Smith: "What are we going to do?"
Prof. Brown: "I think we should eliminate one of the teaching assistant positions. That would take care of it."
Prof. Jones: "We could reduce our scheduled raises instead."
Prof. Brown: " I can't understand why you want to bleed us dry like that, Jones."
"Senator Jones says that we should not fund the attack submarine program. I disagree entirely. I can't understand why he wants to leave us defenseless like that."
Bill and Jill are arguing about cleaning out their closets:
Jill: "We should clean out the closets. They are getting a bit messy."
Bill: "Why, we just went through those closets last year. Do we have to clean them out everyday?"
Jill: "I never said anything about cleaning them out every day. You just want too keep all your junk forever, which is just ridiculous."

ecsniffer · 发表于 2004-3-4 20:19:00

Fallacy: Two Wrongs Make a Right

Description of Two Wrongs Make a Right

Two Wrongs Make a Right is a fallacy in which a person "justifies" an action against a person by asserting that the person would do the same thing to him/her, when the action is not necessary to prevent B from doing X to A. This fallacy has the following pattern of "reasoning":

It is claimed that person B would do X to person A.
It is acceptable for person A to do X to person B (when A's doing X to B is not necessary to prevent B from doing X to A).

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because an action that is wrong is wrong even if another person would also do it.
It should be noted that it can be the case that it is not wrong for A to do X to B if X is done to prevent B from doing X to A or if X is done in justified retribution. For example, if Sally is running in the park and Biff tries to attack her, Sally would eb jsutified in attacking Biff to defend herself. As another example, if country A is planning to invade country B in order to enslave the people, then country B would be justified in launching a pre-emptive strike to prevent the invasion.

Examples of Two Wrongs Make a Right

Bill has borrowed Jane's expensive pen, but found he didn't return it. He tell's himself that it is okay to keep it, since she would have taken his.
Jane: "Did you hear about those terrorists killing those poor people? That sort of killing is just wrong."
Sue: "Those terrorists are justified. After all, their land was taken from them. It is morally right for them to do what they do."
Jane: "Even when they blow up busloads of children?"
Sue: "Yes."
After leaving a store, Jill notices that she has underpaid by $10. She decides not to return the money to the store because if she had overpaid, they would not have returned the money.
Jill is horrified by the way the state uses capital punishment. Bill says that capital punishment is fine, since those the state kill don't have any qualms about killing others.

weiyu · 发表于 2004-3-4 23:12:00

Thanks host ecsniffer. 但是实在不理解（２）即L8-1-13的C选项为什么是straw man,能给个详细点的解释吗？

weiyu · 发表于 2004-3-5 11:21:00

帮帮忙，排除我的迷惑吧。

ecsniffer · 发表于 2004-3-5 15:25:00

一点愚见

original behavior: Isabel's action of jumping into a freezing river to rescue a drowning child

straw man: such acts of heroism

从 Such acts of heroism performed to save the Life of one enrich the lives of all. 推出Isabel's action enriched the lives of all

seekmydream · 发表于 2005-1-27 01:15:00

lsat 8-I-3：每个选民只能决定自己社区（Neighborhood）议员的去留，如果他们都象发言的人一样保留自己社区的现任议员，那么整个议会组成不会有任何变化。（A）是答案，但不具有充分性。（B) 无关，如果他们投现任议员，再多的人去投票也无济于事。

[QUOTE]lsat 8-I-13：这是以前学过的“稻草人（Straw Man）”逻辑模型: 即将一个观点无限上纲到已经背离原观点的真实含义；然后将对扭曲后观点的定性，强加在原来的观点上面。明白这一点，从选项中再找出来一个“稻草人”就行了。（C）

lsat 8-I-17：又是一个Parallel_Flaw;　逻辑模式是“Two Wrongs Make a Right”, 即用一个错误来解释另外一个错误，使其具有合理性，注意这两个错误之间必须相关联。只有(C)　才是答案。

lsat 8-II-5：如果Ｈ＆Ｓ不那么狂妄，那么２０世纪的人类会更充满祥和。

都有哪些逻辑模式呢？对这类问题，偶只能一个一个地比较排除，很费时。谁能系统地解释解释？谢谢！

seekmydream · 发表于 2005-1-27 01:19:00

lsat 8-I-3：每个选民只能决定自己社区（Neighborhood）议员的去留，如果他们都象发言的人一样保留自己社区的现任议员，那么整个议会组成不会有任何变化。（A）是答案，但不具有充分性。（B) 无关，如果他们投现任议员，再多的人去投票也无济于事。

lsat 8-I-13：这是以前学过的“稻草人（Straw Man）”逻辑模型: 即将一个观点无限上纲到已经背离原观点的真实含义；然后将对扭曲后观点的定性，强加在原来的观点上面。明白这一点，从选项中再找出来一个“稻草人”就行了。（C）
lsat 8-I-17：又是一个Parallel_Flaw;　逻辑模式是“Two Wrongs Make a Right”, 即用一个错误来解释另外一个错误，使其具有合理性，注意这两个错误之间必须相关联。只有(C)　才是答案。
lsat 8-II-5：如果Ｈ＆Ｓ不那么狂妄，那么２０世纪的人类会更充满祥和。

都有哪些逻辑模式呢？对这类问题，偶只能一个一个地比较排除，很费时。谁能系统地解释解释？谢谢！

lsat 8-1-3,13,17

lsat 8-I-3,13,17

Description of Straw Man

Examples of Straw Man

Description of Two Wrongs Make a Right

Examples of Two Wrongs Make a Right

lsat 8-1-3,13,17

所属分类: 法学院申请

正在浏览此版块的会员 ()