- UID
- 1390765
- 在线时间
- 小时
- 注册时间
- 2019-3-5
- 最后登录
- 1970-1-1
- 主题
- 帖子
- 性别
- 保密
|
For question 10
We have to be as objective as possible when dealing with the methods of reasoning questions.
Argument structure of both
Lydia: P1 ( Entangled in equipment owned by fishing company ) --> P2 ( thousands of bird injured ) ---> C ( Fishing company should assume the responsibilities to fund the veterinary for the injured bird )
Support 1 - > Support 2 as the evidence to support the a claim as the conclusion.
Jonathan: C (Refute the claim ) < ---- P1 ( Prolong the life of serious injured is inhuman ) < ---- P2 ( they should no longer live )
We can clear see, Jonathan did refute the claim of Lydia by discussing the consequences brought in a philosophical principle of morality.
A. he does not direct personal attach, he did show his admirations toward Lydia's empathy to birds.
B. Self interest ? Cmon
C. !!!!!! please be careful !!!!!!!!! he does not question the appropriateness of interfering with the wildlife; instead, he question the morality principle of being inhuman to prolong the life of serious injured bird, since it might make them suffer.
D. He did attempt to discredit the proposal by refuting her claim via discussing only those serious injured bird would be treated. ( Correct answer )
E. he does not run away from the discussion, and he does not question whether her feeling towards the bird should be justified or not.
Question 11.
C: Harvesting old growth trees from the forest for manufacturing can reduce the carbon dioxide in atmosphere
P1: Old tree will release carbon dioxide when decompose
P2: Harvesting old growth trees from the forest would save room for young trees to grow rapidly, and it could absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere than do trees in old growth forest.
First of all, please be careful as reading the concept of whether the quantities of A decrease ( Old trees ) could surely decrease the quantities of B ( Carbon dioxide in atmosphere ) . Just because the quantity of A decrease could increase the quantities of C ( Room of new trees ) , and which results in the increase of D ( New trees grow ) that could better do X ( absorbing carbon dioxide ) than old trees, it still does not mean if the total amount of the B could be decrease. D only showing a better characteristic of an action.
Secondly, whether the numbers of the new trees grow at the extra room would at least absorb the same amount of carbon dioxide which old trees, harvested, should have absorbed ? If not, then we know there is a chance that the amount of carbon dioxide might not be lower, since the total numbers of the trees, able to absorb the carbon dioxide, are lower.
Let us weaken the argument.
1. Its not about whether the animal would be endangered or not, we only care about whether the co2 in the atmosphere could be reduced or not.
2. If you cut the old trees that could absorb the C02 and leave the unusable ones which only decompose Co2 rapidly, then the total numbers of trees being capable of absorbing the Co2 are definitely not be able to absorb as high capacities of C02 previously. ( Correct answer )
3. The amount of Co2 contained within various species or the same species of the tree is non relevant.
4. Just as C, it does not really matter whether they are not found on the floor or not.
5. Regardless of how many years it requires to grow, as long as the total amount of the co2 in atmosphere could be reduced after a million year, it does not weaken the argument.
|
|