[求助]Test 13-18 again

shinycrystal · 发表于 2007-4-9 14:46:00

Test 13-18

Frieda: Lightning causes fires and damages electronic equipment. Since lightning rods can prevent any major damage, every building should have one.

Erik: Your recommendation is pointless. It is true that lightning occasionally causes fires, but faulty wiring and overloaded circuits cause far more fires and damage to equipment than lightning does.

Erik’s response fails to establish that Frieda’s recommendation should not be acted on because his response

(A) does not show that the benefits that would follow from Frieda’s recommendation would be offset by any disadvantage

(B) does not offer any additional way of lessening the risk associated with lightning

(C) appeals to Frieda’s emotions rather than to her reason

(D) introduces an irrelevant comparison between overloaded circuits and faulty wiring（A）

(E) confuses the notion of preventing damage with that of causing inconvenience

Why choose A?

Hope NN help me.

Thank you in advance!

dphxmg · 发表于 2007-4-10 17:54:00

This question requires you to weaken Erik's reasoning.

A constitutes an effective weakening.
B: If Erik provides an additional way of lessening the risk, it proves that we should not problems linked with lightning. Somehow it strenthen the premise of Frieda's argument.
C: irrelevant
D: irrelevant
E: irrelevant

In fact, if one is to criticise a recommendation, they can expose the disadvantages brought by it, attack the premise of it, provide a better alternative recommendation, etc.

shinycrystal · 发表于 2007-4-11 08:19:00

Hi,dphxmg:

Thank you for your reply! But I still have some doubt...Would you please elaborate on choice A?

[求助]Test 13-18 again

[求助]Test 13-18 again

所属分类: 法学院申请

正在浏览此版块的会员 ()