这道题我纠结了好久。
个人看法：
议员的假设是艺术品都不是下流的，但是他并没有任何论据和论证来证明这个假设是一个可信的结论。事实上，他需要证明这个假设，否则他就无法说明为什么不要监管艺术家。
当有人说艺术品也有下流的时候，议员 justifies accepting the principle，说下流的不是艺术品。他之所以说“下流的不是艺术品”，就是因为之前的一个假设“艺术品都不是下流的”，可是他并没有证明过这一点。
我觉得justifies accepting the principle是一个突破口。
我的看法可能不对，希望有大牛出来解答。
45.The senator has long held to the general printable that no true work of art is obscene and thus that there is no conflict between the need to encourage free artistic expression and the need to protect the sensibilities of the public from obscentiy.When well-known works generally viewed as obscence are citied as possible counterexamples,the senator justifies accepting the principle by saying that if these works really are obscene then they cannot be works of art. The senator's reasoning contains which one of the following errors? A.It seeks to persuade by emotional rather than intellectual means B.It contains an implicit contradiction. C.It relies on an assertion of senator authority D.It assumes what it seeks to establish. E.It attempts to justify a position by appeal to an irrelevant consideration 现在把5个选项的中文译文摘出来 a.它企图去用情感而不是用理知方法去说服 b.它蕴含了一个暗含的矛盾 c.它依赖于一个参议员的权威的宣称 d.它设假了它要去证实的 e.它企图通过反对一个不相关的理由来认定一个观点的正确. 答案选d.虽然用排除法可以选出来，但就算我看了中文翻译也不明白d说明的道理! -- by 会员 gedn01 (2010/2/12 13:56:20)
| 
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2010-2-12 13:56:20
收藏
收藏
楼主