ChaseDream
搜索
返回列表 发新帖
查看: 2275|回复: 2
打印 上一主题 下一主题

[求助]LSAT-2-4-6

[复制链接]
楼主
发表于 2004-12-8 17:08:00 | 只看该作者

[求助]LSAT-2-4-6

6.     Although this bottle is labeled “vinegar,” no fizzing occurred when some of the liquid in it was added to powder from this box labeled “baking soda.” But when an acidic liquid such as vinegar is added to baking soda the resulting mixture fizzes, so this bottle clearly has been mislabeled.


A flaw in the reasoning in the argument above is that this argument


(A) ignores the possibility that the bottle contained an acidic liquid other than vinegar


(B) fails to exclude an alternative explanation for the observed effect


(C) depends on the use of the imprecise term “fizz”


(D) does not take into account the fact that scientific principles can be definitively tested only under controlled laboratory conditions


(E) assumes that the fact of a labeling error is proof of an intention to deceive



答案是(B) WHY?


在此预先说声:"谢谢,不胜感激!"

沙发
发表于 2004-12-9 09:52:00 | 只看该作者
原文的不冒泡不一定是Bottle中不是vinegar,也可能是因为 box 中的powder不是baking soda,即结论没有排除这种可能性。即B
板凳
发表于 2019-8-12 20:12:25 | 只看该作者
ymxl4611 发表于 2004-12-8 17:08
6.     Although this bottle is labeled “vinegar,” no fizzing occurred when som ...

Spot the question type: Method of the reasoning - flaw

Core of the argument:

Well, the simple flaw here is, what if the baking soda is not baking soda ?

A. Not relevant

B. That alternative explanation could be - box does not contained any baking soda.

C. Not relevant

D. Not relevant

E. ( Proof of an intention to deceive !!!! ??? ) No
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, 2024-12-23 09:02
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