ChaseDream
搜索
返回列表 发新帖
查看: 2377|回复: 2
打印 上一主题 下一主题

LSAT-1-4-22

[复制链接]
楼主
发表于 2004-8-16 01:14:00 | 只看该作者

LSAT-1-4-22

  

22.   It is illogical to infer a second and different effect from a cause which is known only by one particular effect. This is incorrect because the inferred effect must necessarily be produced by some different characteristic of the cause than is the observed effect, which already serves entirely to describe the cause.



Which one of the following arguments makes the same logical error as the one described by the author in the passage?



(A) An anonymous donor gave a thousand dollars to our historical society. I would guess that that individual also volunteers at the children’s hospital.



(B) The radioactive material caused a genetic mutation, which, in turn, caused the birth defect. Therefore, the radioactive material caused the birth defect.



(C) The tiny, unseen atom is the source of immense power. It must be its highly complex structure that produces this power.



(D) The city orchestra received more funds from the local government this year than ever before. Clearly this administration is more civic-minded than previous ones.(A)



(E) If I heat water, which is a liquid, it evaporates. If I heat hundreds of other liquids like water, they evaporate. Therefore, if I heat any liquid like water, it will evaporate.



y the answer is A?



沙发
发表于 2004-8-16 04:41:00 | 只看该作者

文中逻辑错误( It is illogical )为:infer a second and different effect from a cause which is known only by one particular effect(其中 one particular effect为observed effect)。即因为观察到某个结果(行为)而推出第二个或不同的结果(行为)。A就是这个意思的一个例子。

板凳
发表于 2013-5-10 11:44:37 | 只看该作者
云在青天水在瓶 发表于 2004-8-16 01:14
  22.   It is illogical to infer a second and different effect from a cause whic ...

22.   It is illogical to infer a second and different effect from a cause which is known only by one particular effect. This is incorrect because the inferred effect must necessarily be produced by some different characteristic of the cause than is the observed effect, which already serves entirely to describe the cause.
思路:认为从一个只能产生一个结果的原因中,推测出来第二个不同的结果,是错误的!
因为这个第二个结果必须来自于这个原因的其他方面,而不是来自于导致已经发生的结果的那个原因。
Which one of the following arguments makes the same logical error as the one described by the author in the passage?
(A) An anonymous donor gave a thousand dollars to our historical society. I would guess that that individual also volunteers at the children’s hospital.
“匿名者捐钱”(第一结果)是一个已经产生的结果,我们可以推测出来这个人热衷“慈善事业”(原因)。然后再用这个原因推测出来他在一家儿童医院从事志愿者活动(第二结果)。 这正好符合题干中指出的logic error. 因为由一个相同的原因,推出来了两个不同的结果:一个是捐款,一个是志愿活动。
(B) The radioactive material caused a genetic mutation, which, in turn, caused the birth defect. Therefore, the radioactive material caused the birth defect.
(C) The tiny, unseen atom is the source of immense power. It must be its highly complex structure that produces this power.
(D) The city orchestra received more funds from the local government this year than ever before. Clearly this administration is more civic-minded than previous ones.A
(E) If I heat water, which is a liquid, it evaporates. If I heat hundreds of other liquids like water, they evaporate. Therefore, if I heat any liquid like water, it will evaporate.
逻辑错误在于“部分”不能代表“全部”,不同于题干
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:

手机版|ChaseDream|GMT+8, 2025-6-13 07:50
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