因果型的削弱题可以直接削弱"因"吗?

对照一下这两题.

OG157

Companies O and P each have the same number of employees who work the same number of hours per week. According to records maintained by each company, the employees of Company O had fewer job-related accidents last year than did the employees of Company P. Therefore, employees of Company O are less likely to have job-related accidents than are employees of Company P.

Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the conclusion above?

(A) The employees of Company P lost more time at work due to job-related accidents than did the employees of Company O.

(B) Company P considered more types of accidents to be job-related than did Company O.

(C) The employees of Company P were sick more often than were the employees of Company O.

(D) Several employees of Company O each had more than one job-related accident.

(E) The majority of job-related accidents at Company O involved a single machine.

ETS答案:B. 这题是因果型. B通过削弱了”因”来削弱结论. 把records shows fewer job-related accidents削弱成records are not accurate.

涛涛GWD-4-Q27

In parts of the Caribbean, the manatee, an endangered marine mammal, has long been hunted for its meat.  Having noted the manatee hunters’ expert knowledge of manatees’ habits, local conservationists are encouraging the hunters to stop hunting and instead to take tourists on boat rides to see manatees.  Tourist interest is high, so the plan has promise of achieving the twin goals of giving the former hunters a good income and helping ensure the manatees’ survival.

Which of the following, if true, raises the most serious doubt about the plan’s chance of success?

1. Many tourists who visit these parts of the Caribbean are uninterested in manatees and would not be willing to pay what the former manatee hunters would have to charge for boat rides to see manatees.
2. Recovery of the species would enable some hunting to continue without putting the manatees’ survival in jeopardy again.
3. In areas where manatees have traditionally been hunted for food, local people could easily replace the manatee meat in their diets with other foods obtained from the sea.
4. There would not be enough former manatee hunters to act as guides for all the tourists who want to see manatees.
5. To maintain their current income, manatee hunters who switched to guiding tourists would have to use far larger boats and make many more trips into the manatees’ fragile habitat than they currently do.

答案:E. 本来我一直支持E. 觉得A的many tourist are uninterested不等于tourist interest is not high enough for the plan to succeed. 今天对此题有些疑问. 此题也是因果型. A确实或多或少得削弱了”因”. 把Tourist interest is high削弱成tourists interests are not high. 为什么A不对?

顶一下.

该题不能算作因果推理。

Weaken类型及解题有

1. 因果

2. 条件推理

3. 断桥

4. 直接驳斥结论

5. 一般逻辑漏洞

6. 隐含假设

本题应该是一般逻辑漏洞中的统计偏差（比较对象不一致）。

多谢楼上兄弟. 回到我标题的问题. 因果型的削弱题可以对"因"削弱吗? 27题是因果了吧, A如果是: nobody is interested (完全否定"因") 可以算对吗?

GWD4-27题应该很有争议。

首先，A和E都是weaken；最多就是程度的不同。

这是一道措施题，不能算强因果。

措施：hunters to stop hunting and instead to take tourists on boat rides to see manatees

目的：giving the former hunters a good income and helping ensure the manatees’ survival.

A用了many不好，有以偏概全之嫌。

E等价于hunters would earn more money if they were not to follow the plan。即不采取措施，反而更好；采取措施反而不好。（有因无果，有果无因）

回答你的问题：

削弱题的定义就是在前提（充分条件）成立的情况下，证明结论（必要条件）不成立。

所以，没有削弱因的可能性！