一道晕眩的逻辑题，请各位NN帮忙～

xxxyyyzzz1 · 发表于 2009-3-25 22:10:00

economist:in order to decide what to do about protecting the ozone
layer,we must determine the monetary amount of the economic resources
that we would willingly expend to protect it .Such a determination
amounts to a calculation of the monetary value of the ozone layer.

environmentalists argue that the ozone layer does not have a calculable
monetary value.However,we would not willingly expend an amount equal to
all of the world's economice resources to protect the ozone layer,so
the ozone layer is demonstrably worth less than that amount.Thus, the
ozone layer has a calculable monetary value.

The reasoning in the economist argument is flawed in that the argurment

A) use evidence that the monetary value of a particular natural
resource is less than a certain amount in order to establish that the
monetary value of any natural resource is less than that amount.

B)presupposes that the ozone layer should not be protected and then argues to that claim as a conclusion

C)takes advantage of an ambiguity in the term "value" to deflect the environmentalists charge

D)gives no reason for thinking that merely establishing an upper limit
on a certain monetary value would allow the calculation of that
monetary valule.

E)does not directly address the argument of the environmentalist.

参考答案是D

我的问题是，我可以排除E A B，但是对于C这类型的答案，就是“模糊某个概念”使逻辑出现漏洞的选项，不知道在成为正确选项的时候有什么特征。

答案D感觉是环境学家给的limit啊，而且环境学家自身有没有矛盾呢？开始说不可测量价值，后面又说可以。

YuCongyun · 发表于 2009-3-25 22:34:00

我也晕了，同问。

shuxuehai · 发表于 2009-3-26 00:53:00

The logical structure of this argument: (EC= economist, EN= environmentalist, OZ= ozone layer)

EC thinks OZ should be protected, by ways of calculating OZ value.

EN thinks no, because he thinks that it is not calculable.

EC counters EN, saying that OZ value could be calculated, as OZ value is less than all the values of resources in the world.

Obviously, EC assumes that OZ value is calculable as it is under a certain limit. It is not that the term "value" is ambiguious, but that EC makes an assumption.

songlovegt · 发表于 2009-3-26 04:57:00

LS qiang

hansomecd · 发表于 2009-3-26 11:54:00

However,we would not willingly expend an amount equal to all of the world's economice resources to protect the ozone layer,so the ozone layer is demonstrably worth less than that amount.Thus, the ozone layer has a calculable monetary value.
这些观点是economist的，environmentalists就这一句： argue that the ozone layer does not have a calculable monetary value

xxxyyyzzz1 · 发表于 2009-3-27 13:17:00

"However,we would not willingly expend an amount equal to all of the world's economice resources to protect the ozone layer,so the ozone layer is demonstrably worth less than that amount.Thus, the ozone layer has a calculable monetary value."

题目里面没有说这个是EC的观点，是不是书排版有问题？没有说清楚哪个是经济学家说的啊？

如果是书排版的问题的话，那按你的理解就应该是对的了

一道晕眩的逻辑题，请各位NN帮忙～

一道晕眩的逻辑题，请各位NN帮忙～

所属分类: GMAT考试

正在浏览此版块的会员 ()

浏览过的版块