ChaseDream
搜索
返回列表 发新帖
查看: 1796|回复: 3
打印 上一主题 下一主题

LSAT-3-I-17 请教

[复制链接]
楼主
发表于 2004-12-7 21:46:00 | 只看该作者

LSAT-3-I-17 请教

The question whether intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is certainly imprecise, because we are not sure how different from us something might be and still count as “intelligent life.” Yet we cannot just decide to define “intelligent life” in some more precise way since it is likely that we will find and recognize intelligent life elsewhere in the universe only if we leave our definitions open to new, unimagined possibilities.



18.   The passage, if seen as an objection to an antecedent claim, challenges that claim by:


(A) showing the claim to be irrelevant to the issue at hand


(B) citing examples that fail to fit proposed definition of “intelligent life”


(C) claiming that “intelligent life” cannot be adequately defined


(D) arguing that the claim, if acted on, would be counterproductiveD


(E) maintaining that the claim is not supported by the available evidence


ABE都可以通过无关词排除,可是在CD中一直是犹豫的,明明文章讲的更多的是“interlligent life is undefined",可是为什么答案确实D,"counterproductive",虽然我把它放回原文,的确能感觉到它没错,可是也没有办法排除C没错啊,所以请教NN们帮忙解答。

沙发
发表于 2004-12-8 10:39:00 | 只看该作者
对比起来, 还是D 好, C只说了一部分情况,D 更全面: finding of new intelligent life is possible only if the definition is open
[此贴子已经被作者于2004-12-8 22:40:01编辑过]
板凳
发表于 2004-12-8 22:39:00 | 只看该作者

仔细看,C不是不好,还就是不对

Yet we cannot just decide to define “intelligent life” in some more precise way since.....

这句话强调的是 我们不能去DEFINE, 没有说我们能不能的问题,到底能不能, still a question. C说不能,PREMATURE

地板
发表于 2005-8-8 17:27:00 | 只看该作者

题干谈了两方面。


“yet”前说的是技术上不能定义(因为imprecise),


“yet”后说的是策略上不应该定义。

您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 立即注册

Mark一下! 看一下! 顶楼主! 感谢分享! 快速回复:

所属分类: 法学院申请

近期活动

正在浏览此版块的会员 ()

手机版|ChaseDream|GMT+8, 2025-1-11 13:19
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号

ChaseDream 论坛

© 2003-2023 ChaseDream.com. All Rights Reserved.

返回顶部