拜读了一些贴子。大家谈到evidence的问题,指出evidence->conclusion的思考方向,并且指出绝对不能攻击evidence,而应该针对conclusion.
我的想法是,其实所说的这个evidence仅仅是题干给出的一个背景知识而已,与题干的逻辑是没有关系的,所以攻击他的选项压根儿就无关!
举个例子说吧:(该题有朋友发过详细的贴子进行研究,连接如下:http://www.chasedream.com/show.aspx?id=85&cid=43)
Doctors in Britain have long suspected that patients who wear tinted eyeglasses are abnormally prone to depression and hypochondria. Psychological tests given there to hospital patients admitted for physical complaints like heart pain and digestive distress confirmed such a relationship. Perhaps people whose relationship to the world is psychologically painful choose such glasses to reduce visual stimulation, which is perceived as irritating. At any rate, it can be concluded that when such glasses are worn, it is because the wearer has a tendency to be depressed or hypochondriacal。
23. Each of the following, if true, weakens the argument EXCEPT:
(A) Some people wear tinted glasses not because they choose to do so but because a medical condition of their eyes forces them to do so.
(B) Even a depressed or hypochondriacal person can have valid medical complaints, so a doctor should perform all the usual objective tests in diagnosing such persons.
(C) The confirmatory tests were not done for places such as western North America where the usual quality of light differs from that prevailing in Britain.
(D) Fashions with respect to wearing tinted glasses differ in different parts of the world.
(E) At the hospitals where the tests were given, patients who were admitted for conditions less ambiguous than heart pain or digestive distress did not show the relationship between tinted glasses and depression or hypochondria
我觉得该题干给出的逻辑关系就是:题目前提是:某个试验发现带眼镜与心理障碍有关。结论是:有心理障碍的人喜欢带眼镜。
至于Doctors in Britain have long suspected that patients who wear tinted eyeglasses are abnormally prone to depression and hypochondria. 完全就是一个背景知识,与所要表述的逻辑关系一点关系都没有,那么对他的攻击/支持就没有任何影响了。
所以,我觉得,这里并不存在什么 evidence->conclusion 的关系,那个 evidence仅仅是个背景知识,与逻辑(桥梁)没有关系。所以作题的时候应该能够将真正的逻辑关系看出来,摒弃背景知识。
各位大牛牛,请帮忙看看我的思维是否有误区呢?谢谢! |