Saunders: Everyone at last week’s neighborhood association meeting agreed that the row of abandoned and vandalized houses on Cariton Street posed a threat to the safety of our neighborhood. Moreover, no one now disputes that getting the houses torn down eliminated that threat. Some people tried to argue that it was unnecessary to demolish what they claimed were basically sound buildings, since the city had established a fund to help people in need of housing buy and rehabilitate such buildings. The overwhelming success of the demolition strategy, however, proves that the majority, who favored demolition, were right and that those who claimed that the problem could and should be solved by rehabilitating the houses were wrong.
21. Saunders’ reasoning is flawed because it
(A) relies on fear rather than on argument to persuade the neighborhood association to reject the policy advocated by Saunders’ opponents
(B) fails to establish that there is anyone who could qualify for city funds who would be interested in buying and rehabilitating the houses
(C) mistakenly equates an absence of vocal public dissent with the presence of universal public support
(D) offers no evidence that the policy advocated by Saunders’ opponents would not have succeeded if it had been given the chance
(E) does not specify the precise nature of the threat to neighborhood safety supposedly posed by the vandalized houses
??? 你怎么会理解成S这个人在开会的时候提出的这个问题呢? 从哪里看出S在开会呀? Everyone at last week’s neighborhood association meeting agreed that the row of abandoned and vandalized houses on Cariton Street posed a threat to the safety of our neighborhood. Moreover, no one now disputes that getting the houses torn down eliminated that threat.(这里是他陈述的要拆房子的观点) Some people tried to argue that it was unnecessary to demolish what they claimed were basically sound buildings, since the city had established a fund to help people in need of housing buy and rehabilitate such buildings.(这里是S陈述的不要拆房子的观点) The overwhelming success of the demolition strategy, however, proves that the majority, who favored demolition, were right and that those who claimed that the problem could and should be solved by rehabilitating the houses were wrong. (这个才是S自己的观点: 注意这里的however, 联系阅读的原则, however是提出自己的观点. 就在最后这里, 才看出S出问题了: 只从拆房子的success得出结论: 应该拆房子!)
以下是引用番茄炒蛋在2003-12-8 15:27:00的发言： no one now disputes that getting the houses torn down eliminated that threat. however, proves that the majority, who favored demolition, were right
我就从这两句推出选c的，好像没错啊
共有两种观点：demolish房子已防贼，not demolish。 而“no one now disputes that getting the houses torn down eliminated that threat.” 这里的“getting the houses torn down eliminated that threat.” ”只是一个subconclusion。所以不能说反对意见是absenct
咳，你们没有看清楚我的意思 原文是不是由no one now disputes that getting the houses torn down eliminated that threat. 得出 The overwhelming success of the demolition strategy, however, proves that the majority, who favored demolition, were right 我觉得这个就是逻辑中的错误，以前我也碰到过，只不过这题的答案我觉得是错的
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2003-12-8 11:18:00
楼主
