- 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
|
Question 11 - Flaw
P1: Controversial Program rewards good prisoner by plastic surgery performed by medical students.
P2: It's morally questionable
P2: A assumption - What prisoner might want / B assumption - medical student use the surgeries to be trained.
C: Putting these moral issue aside; however, the surgery crearly has a powerful rehabilitative effect as is shown by the fact that among recipients of the surgery, the proportion who are convicted of new crimes committed after release is only half that for the prison population as a whole
Ok, here are few things to discussed about, lets say the overall population of prisons : A, and prisoners with surgeries: B, then my question is, before the surgery, how much is the original population of the prisoners, second, how much would be the population would be the overall population of the prisoners after the surgery ? Apparently. there is no any support offering the exact numbers. Third, for prisoners with surgeries who are convicted of new crimes committed after release is only " half " of the population for the prison population as a whole, then if we assume that A is the overall population " after the surgeries ", then it must be true that Some of B / A = 0.5, based on the information we know. However, being convicted of the new crimes committed for some of those prisoner receiving the surgeries representing 50% of A does not mean if there are any other prisoners receiving the surgeries whom have not been convicted for committing the crimes would not " also " be convicted in the future. By the same token, without a giving timeline, exact size of the samples of the subgroups and also the total group, there is no way for us to truly determine whether the correlation shown could prove a certain interpretation of that correlation or not.
let us dive into the answers.
A: The conclusion has stated that " beside the moral issues ", and we are looking for the " flaw " in the reasoning.
B: Whether dismiss the moral considerations or not, it does not really relevant to the argument presented. As said, the reasoning above is " Interpret a trend from the sample, being unable to represent any subgroup or group. "
C: Totally off the scope
D: Based on the argument, it stated really clear that " beside the moral issue " .
E. Totally match with our inference above - we do really have reasons to believe that the correction could be true, but not necessary to be true. Correct answer.
Question 13
Spot the question type: " Justify the conclusion "
* If you ever seen the question type of justifying the conclusion in the passage, you must be always ask yourself does the supports given from the argument sufficient enough to guarantee the the conclusions. Which is to say, you want to look for the other assumption that can form a reasonable logic chains inferred from the argument.
So the structure of the argument is
P1: It must be either A ( part of the planet's outer shell spun off into orbit around the planet ) or B ( a large object, such as comet or meteoroid struck the planet so violently that it dislodged a mass of material form inside the planet. ), If C ( moon made of planet ).
Inference: If C, then A or B, or ( A + B )
If no C, then No A + No B or No ( A+ B )
P2 : Moon of the Earth consists primarily of materials different from those of the Earth's outer shell. ( No C )
C: Earth's moon was not formed from a piece of the Earth.
Inference:
As engaging with the argument and strategizing the tactics of looking for right answer, we must know that the right answer of this question could be the paraphrase of " If moon was not made of earth, then it must be true that No A + No B or No ( A+B ).
Then in order to make the logic air tight, we have to look for the appearance of No B ( the mass material inside of earth is not the same as it of moon )
A. Which just cited the other examples that also show the same characteristic of the moon of the earth, and which does not prove the fact that the moon can't have the same materials as the earth does.
B. Bingo
C. The fact that the gravity of Earth can't have trapped the meteoroid and pulled it into orbit as the moon does not prove the fact that no meteorite would not have pulled by the gravity of the other planets and changed its orbit, which would bump into Earth. For example: Even though you are really careful as driving the car to best avoid the car accidents does not mean that no reckless drivers would never hit you.
D. The craters of the moon only show the fact that it was hit by the meteoroid. However, it does not show the fact that whether moon and earth does or does not share the same materials.
E. Off the scope.
|
|