og11-18

请教og11-18

Opponents of laws that require automobile drivers and passengers to wear seat belts argue that in a free society people have the right to take risks as long as the people do not harm others as a result of taking the risks.As a result, they concluded that it should be each person's decision whether or not to wear a seat belt.

答案是B：Automobile insurance rates for all automobile owners are higher because of the need to pay for the increased injuries or deaths of people not wearing seat belts

B到底从哪里weaken了conclusion呢？原文已经说了只要他们不harm others...

楼主一定是奇怪，答案为什么可以否定了前提因素：harm others,

一般来说前提由A 推出 B ,weaken结论 B 的时候不能否定A是错的，此题也是如此，前提是“人们应该有权利冒险”

但是，as long as not do harm to others ,并不是前提，只是逻辑推到的一部分，所以可以否定它，起到断桥削弱

谢谢helenwolf。如果按照lawyer的分类，它应该属于削弱里的哪一类呢？该题应该是一般性结论。To be discussed...

lawyer的分类我真的不太清楚，Lsat我没看过

削弱一般分为他因削弱，和断桥削弱

此题是断桥，证明A不能推出B。来削弱结论，其中包括 ：

1）A非 推 B ，

2）A 推 B非，

3）逻辑中项 C的出现，否定C的推导,

4)直接说A 推不出B（这样说的一般要好好看看别的，一般选项不这么出）

他因是 A可以推出B，但是C也可以推出B，所以削弱了A的必要性，

我就知道这些了。。。hehe