为什么这个逻辑是错的

女王的肥皂 · 发表于 2012-6-14 11:32:42

Driver: My friends say I will one day have an accident because I drive my sports car recklessly. But I have done some research, and apparently minivans and larger sedans have very low accident rates compared to sports cars. So trading my sports car in for a minivan would lower my risk of having an accident.
The reasoning in the driver's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that this argument
(A) infers a cause from a mere correlation
(B) relies on a sample that is too narrow
(C) misinterprets evidence that a result is likely as evidence that the result is certain
(D) mistakes a condition sufficient for bringing about a result for a condition necessary for doing so
(E) relies on a source that is probably not well-informed
Look at this argument: I drive car reckless, so I will have an accident one day.
Minivans have low accident rates compared to sports cars.
Conclusion: minivans will lower my risk of having an accident.
Still again, I think I can infer this conclusion based on the information provided.

上邪 · 发表于 2012-6-14 11:41:36

because it ignores other possibilities
the conclusion means changing the car to big ones is the only way to avoid car crash...
狒狒上好像有蛮多这种题的额
什么因为天热所以大家都用吃雪糕降温所以只要吃雪糕就能降温
因为吃A药能让大家不生病所以只要吃药都能不生病
…………0 0

女王的肥皂 · 发表于 2012-6-14 12:46:10

不是呀，我觉得论述说的是 A--> B ,
但是没有强调只有A -->B

fiq5659613 · 发表于 2012-6-14 18:15:44

我觉得Minivan和large senda事故率低的原因可能是他们的司机经过特殊的培训，不会drive recklessly。所以错误在于misinterprets evidence

女王的肥皂 · 发表于 2012-6-15 15:47:34

为什么这个逻辑是错的

所属分类: GMAT考试

正在浏览此版块的会员 ()