ChaseDream
搜索
返回列表 发新帖
查看: 1790|回复: 3
打印 上一主题 下一主题

费费44

[复制链接]
楼主
发表于 2004-6-7 23:27:00 | 只看该作者

费费44

44. Legal theorist: It is unreasonable to incarcerate anyone for any other reason than that he or she is a serious threat to the property or lives of other people. The breaking of a law does not justify incarceration, for lawbreaking proceeds either from ignorance of the law or of the effects of one’s actions, or from the free choice of the lawbreaker. Obviously mere ignorance cannot justify incarcerating a lawbreaker, and even free choice on the part of the lawbreaker fails to justify incarceration, for free choice proceeds from the desires of an agent, and the desires of an agent are products of genetics and environmental conditioning, neither of which is controlled by the agent


The claim in the first sentence of the passage plays which one of the following roles in the argument


(A) It is offered as a premise that helps to show that no actions are under the control of the agent


(B) It is offered as background information necessary to understand the argument


(C) It is offered as the main conclusion that the argument is designed to establish


(D) It is offered as evidence for the stated claim that protection of life and property is more important than retribution for past illegal acts


(E) It is offered as evidence for the stated claim that lawbreaking proceeds from either ignorance of the law, or ignorance of the effects of one’s actions, or free choice


怎么都不明白为什么选E呢?第一句怎么能说是个证据呢?

沙发
发表于 2004-6-8 09:00:00 | 只看该作者
啊?我选C。
板凳
发表于 2004-6-10 11:39:00 | 只看该作者

晴MM, 好像你的答案错了, 我的FF答案也是C哟

地板
 楼主| 发表于 2004-6-11 09:01:00 | 只看该作者
啊,哈哈,那太好了,我就理解了,我说怎么死活看不明白呢,多谢多谢
您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 立即注册

Mark一下! 看一下! 顶楼主! 感谢分享! 快速回复:

手机版|ChaseDream|GMT+8, 2024-11-10 11:23
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号

ChaseDream 论坛

© 2003-2023 ChaseDream.com. All Rights Reserved.

返回顶部