ChaseDream
搜索
返回列表 发新帖
查看: 1141|回复: 3
打印 上一主题 下一主题

lsat-8-2-17

[复制链接]
楼主
发表于 2005-2-25 21:45:00 | 只看该作者

lsat-8-2-17

17. 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.


请问:这题文章用了怎样的推理?我看不出来,只象是在叙述?

沙发
发表于 2005-2-26 00:42:00 | 只看该作者

找similar推理就行,原文推理是:过去某个经验导致现在某个Belief , 故该belief合理。只有C是这种推理,其他都不是

板凳
 楼主| 发表于 2005-2-26 18:14:00 | 只看该作者

谢谢lawyer!  

我还想问一下:有人讨论这题时说到---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。请问是不是正确?因为我不看不懂这个分析。

地板
发表于 2005-2-26 21:21:00 | 只看该作者
以下是引用icyeye在2005-2-26 18:14:00的发言:

谢谢lawyer!  


我还想问一下:有人讨论这题时说到---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。请问是不是正确?因为我不看不懂这个分析。



谬论。错误解释错误,能合理吗。就是两个错误能得一个正确的,还有这逻辑吗?该题要特别注意推理中的导致的因果关系推理,就是这点排除了其他选项。
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

正在浏览此版块的会员 ()

手机版|ChaseDream|GMT+8, 2025-7-14 09:47
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号

ChaseDream 论坛

© 2003-2025 ChaseDream.com. All Rights Reserved.

返回顶部