请教逻辑大全 TestD-15

adasuying2004 · 发表于 2010-8-24 14:31:48

Susan: Those who oppose experimentation on animals do not properly value the preservation of human life. Although animal suffering is unfortunate, it is justifiable if it can lead to cures for human ailments.
Melvin: But much animal experimentation involves testing of ordinary consumer products such as soaps, dyes, and cosmetics.
Susan: These experiments are justifiable on the same grounds, since cleanliness, convenience, and beauty are worthwhile human values deserving of support.
Which of the following is the best statement of the logical flaw in Susan’s argument?
(A) Her claim that animal experimentation is justifiable if it supports human values contradicts her claim that such experimentation is justifiable only if it leads to cures for human ailments.
(B) She places a higher value on human cleanliness, convenience, and beauty than she does on the preservation of animal life.
(C) She uses the word “value” in two different senses.
(D) She assumes that all ordinary consumer products aid in the preservation of human life.
(E) She fails to show how mere support for human values actually preserves human lives.

答案是E，A为啥不行？

dphxmg · 发表于 2010-8-24 16:32:45

Premise 1: Things that preserve human life should be done
Premise 2: If a thing leads to cures of human ailments, it is justifiable.
Premise 3: cleaniness, covenience and beauty are worthwhile human values deserving of support.
Conclusion: experimentation on animals for cleaniness, covenience and beauty is justifiable.

A is not correct for two reasons. First, it does not accurately report Premise 2 because it mistakens a sufficient condition as a necessary one (only if). Second, the relationship between support for those human values and preservation of human life, unknown.

请教逻辑大全 TestD-15

所属分类: GMAT考试

正在浏览此版块的会员 ()