- UID
- 748728
- 在线时间
- 小时
- 注册时间
- 2012-4-14
- 最后登录
- 1970-1-1
- 主题
- 帖子
- 性别
- 保密
|
Argument Evaluation
Situation It is proposed that fi re alarm boxes on street corners be removed. Doing so will reduce
the number of prank calls without hampering people’s ability to report fi res. Most false
alarms are prank calls made from these boxes. Th ey have outlived their usefulness, as
most people now have private telephones.
Reasoning Which option most strongly supports the claim that removing the alarm boxes will reduce the
number of prank calls without hampering people’s ability to report a fi re? Th e argument
already provides some evidence that (1) removing the boxes will reduce prank calls—
because that is where most such call are now made from—and that (2) doing so will not
hamper people’s ability to report fi res—virtually everyone already has a private telephone
from which they could report a fi re. So for an option to be correct it must support either
(1) or (2) or both, and provide more such support than the other options. If prank calls
from private telephones are traced back to their origin, that should deter people from
making such calls.
A Correct. Th is option provides the most support for the claim.
B Th is may provide a reason for supporting the proposal, but it provides no support for either
(1) or (2).
C Th is indicates that it is better to receive fi re calls from telephones than from alarm boxes—other
things being equal—but that supports neither (1) nor (2). Th ere is still the possibility that the
only person aware that a fi re has started is near an alarm box but lacks access to a telephone.
D Th is merely indicates that it would be good if the proposal had the intended eff ects.
E Th is actually weakens support for (2), by enhancing the possibility that the only person aware that
a fi re has started is near an alarm box but lacks access to a working telephone. |
|
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2011-7-13 11:16:28
