FeiFei-65

65. According to advertisements, the higher a suntan lotion’s sun protection factor, or SPE, the more protection from sunburn. In order for a suntan lotion to work, however, one has to remember to put it on before going in the sun, put on an adequate amount to cover the skin, and reapply it as needed. Therefore, it really does not matter what SPE a suntan lotion has.

Which one of the following best identifies the error in reasoning made in the passage?

(A) It is unreasonable to assume that the only purpose of a suntan lotion is to provide protection from sunburn.

(B) Because some people get sunburned more easily than other, the fact that there are different SPEs cannot be ignored.

(C) It cannot be concluded that the SPEs is not important just because there are requirements for the application of the suntan lotion.

(D) It is unreasonable to assume that all suntan lotions required the same application procedures in order to work effectively.

(E) There is no reason to assume that manufacturers are unaware that people sometimes forget to apply suntan lotion before going in the sun.

Anybody can explain why the best key is C instead of B?Thanks.

B is wrong because it includes new comparison that does not show up in the passage, wheras C points out that there is no relationship between evidence and conclusion in the passage, that is, conclusion can not be inferred from the evidence

嗯。。我昨天也做错了这题。

一方面，SPE是很重要的，第一句说了。

另一方面，通过不断补充LOTION，人们可以防晒。

所以，作者认为，只要不断涂防晒霜，SPE根本就无所谓。

否定的逻辑只能是，一个有用不能证明另一个无用。我觉得只是很好的逻辑典型啊。