LSAT-12-2-25

hades · 发表于 2004-12-27 01:16:00

25. The fact that tobacco smoke inhaled by smokers harms the smokers does not prove that the much smaller amount of tobacco smoke inhaled by nonsmokers who share living space with smokers harms the nonsmokers to some degree. Many substances, such as vitamin A, are toxic in large quantities but beneficial in small quantities.

In which one of the following is the pattern of reasoning most similar to that in the argument above?

(A) The fact that a large concentration of bleach will make fabric very white does not prove that a small concentration of bleach will make fabric somewhat white. The effect of a small concentration of bleach may be too slight to change the color of the fabric.

(B) Although a healthful diet should include a certain amount of fiber, it does not follow that a diet that includes large amounts of fiber is more healthful than one that includes smaller amounts of fiber. Too much fiber can interfere with proper digestion.

(C) The fact that large amounts of chemical fertilizers can kill plants does not prove that chemical fertilizers are generally harmful to plants. It proves only that the quantity of chemical fertilizer used should be adjusted according to the needs of the plants and the nutrients already in the soil.

(D) From the fact that five professional taste testers found a new cereal product tasty, it does not follow that everyone will like it.

Many people find broccoli a tasty food, but other people have a strong dislike for the taste of broccoli.

(E) Although watching television for half of every day would be a waste of time, watching television briefly every day is not necessarily even a small waste of time. After all, it would be a waste to sleep half of every day, but some sleep every day is necessary.

答案：E

B哪里错了呢？

lawyer_1 · 发表于 2004-12-27 08:21:00

原文用类比推理的方法。只有E是类比的推理方法

Bensontuo · 发表于 2019-8-16 15:29:51

hades 发表于 2004-12-27 01:16
25. The fact that tobacco smoke inhaled by smokers harms the smokers does not prove that the much sm ...

Spot the question type: Method of the reasoning - parallel reasoning

Structure of the argument

Larger in quantity can cause harm does not mean the smaller in quantity of something also cause that harm

larger in quantity can cause harm does not mean the smaller in quantity of something can't cause good.

Let us see the answer.

A. Larger in quantity of something can make clothes white does not mean smaller in quantity can also make it " white " ( The original argument is about 1 extreme idea can cause one 1 extreme outcome does not prove that 1 less extreme idea also will cause that extreme out come; however, as for A, it said that one extreme idea can cause one extreme outcome does not prove that less extreme idea will cause either that extreme idea or not so extreme idea ). The second sentence - smaller idea of that thing can't do any effect ( Its not what we have from the original sentence; instead, what we have is that less the extreme the idea actually has benefit outcome; however, here it said that less extreme the idea actually makes no any effect.

B. First of all, I would not agree on the fact that we might eliminate B in the first sight of seeing " Although ", since the words actually indicate the tonality changes; however, it is not save enough to judge it is not correct.

Secondly, the other reason why it is not correct is because within the original argument, we do not see the idea of " comparing the the effects sharing the same characteristics between the same causes varies in quantities "

Thirdly, the second sentence here it does only talk about the negative effect caused by the large quantity; however, the original argument actually put the emphasis on the benefits smaller quantity of that idea carries.

C. First of all, kill and harmful are 2 different ideas. It might be correct if we add lesser in front of the second chemical fertilizers, and to replace harmful with kill.

Secondly, " only " is the word implies conditional logics, and also, only as the word is too extreme.

Thirdly, original argument does not mention anything relevant to the idea of " require " and " need "

D. ... I don't really think anyone might choose this one, D is saying that even a sample likes something does not mean the whole group likes it.

E. Ok, We have although as the word showing up at the beginning of the sentence; however, it might be the correct answer. Lets see if the argument did contain 2 important structures that the original argument contains.

1. Larger quantity of a idea can cause a negative effect does not prove that smaller quantity of that idea cause lesser negative effect.

2. Extreme of a idea is, negative the outcome is, and lesser the extremity of that idea, it is actually beneficial.

( Totally matching our original argument )

LSAT-12-2-25

LSAT-12-2-25

所属分类: 法学院申请

正在浏览此版块的会员 ()