Assemblyman Hansen, my opponent in this election campaign, has accused me of using money from the public coffers for personal vacations and other private expenses. Hansen has no right to make such accusations, since the record shows that she hired her own daughter at a handsome salary to serve as a legislative aide. Which of the following is the most serious weakness of the argument above? A) It assumes that anything that Hansen has done is all right. B) It confuses legality with ethical propriety. C) It assumes that Hansen's action would be indictable under current law D) It fails to respond to the charges made by Hansen. E) It implies that Hansen should be held responsible for questionable actions by members of her family. 這題我看了很久 不過不知道是不是題目理解有問題 還是怎樣的 選錯了答案~"~ 我選了B 我想原文的意思是不是說:hansen批評作者拿公家錢去做私人事,作者說hansen自己也是一樣 沒有資格批評他 所以我想應該是他把legality 和 ethical 搞混了 就算hansem也是一樣做錯事 作者自己還是錯的 不過他的答案是D 它的解釋是 D) Rather than respond to Hansen's accusations, the speaker of the argument makes a countercharge against Hansen. Even if the countercharge is true, it leaves Hansen's accusations unanswered. While this tactic is sometimes politically effective, it is logically unsound. 看不太懂~"~ 請幫幫忙 解答一下 謝謝^^ data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/5750c/5750c55b0a89deb711bd6e54ea17e9704c7cdc61" alt="" |