|
原题如下（出自OG12-4）：
According to a prediction of the not-so-distant future published in 1940, electricity would revolutionize agriculture.
Electrodes would be inserted into the soil, and the currentbetween them would kill bugs and weeds and make crop plants stronger.
Which of thefollowing, if true, most strongly indicates that the logic of the prediction above is flawed?
(A) In order for farmers to avoid electric shock while working in thefields, the current could be turned off at such times without diminishing theintended effects.
(B) If the proposed plan for using electricity were put into practice, farmerswould save on chemicals now being added to the soil.
(C) It cannot be taken for granted that the use of electricity is alwaysbeneficial.
(D) Since weeds are plants, electricity would affect weeds in the same way asit would affect crop plants.
(E) Because a planting machine would need to avoid coming into contact with theelectrodes, new parts for planting machines would need to be designed.
这道题本身不是很难，正确答案为D 楼主在做的时候也做对了
但是看到在看某位热心的同学的OG详解时对他的解释产生了怀疑（对不起出处忘了 ） 故抛出来讨论一下
他的这一道题的解释为：
这道题有两个逻辑链条
A. 杀死杂草，虫子使庄稼长更好 B. 庄稼长得更好可以证明电力应用给农业带来了革命题目答案是割裂第一个链条 也可以选择割裂第二个链条 如： 如果电力成本高于农药，那么从成本角度店里无法用于农业
我个人觉得这种解释是不对的 因为题目问的是logic of prediction中的flaw 而不是如何weaken conclusion
所以我们应该考虑的是逻辑的合理性而不是措施的可行性
电力成本高于农药或者说成本角度来看无法用于农业是在说可行性 并不涉及到文中logic的问题 （如果这样算对的话 我想C选项也不怎么错了）
这道题归类的话应该属于 flaw in reasoning 理应不应该出现新的东西才对（也就是无关词排除法）
所以我窃以为如果这道题有类似的选项比如说使用电流的成本必然高于使用农药的成本也是不能选的也不知道自己说的对不对 恳请大家斧正
欢迎讨论 感觉自己逻辑混乱 请轻拍 | 
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2012-6-22 11:52:00
收藏
收藏
楼主
