- UID
- 524265
- 在线时间
- 小时
- 注册时间
- 2010-4-1
- 最后登录
- 1970-1-1
- 主题
- 帖子
- 性别
- 保密
|
36.Offshore oil-drilling operations entail an unavoidablerisk of an oil spill, but importing oil on tankerspresently entails an even greater such risk perbarrel of oil. Therefore, if we are to reduce the risk ofan oil spill without curtailing our use of oil, we mustinvest more in offshore operations and import less oilon tankers.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens
the argument above?
(A)Tankers can easily be redesigned so that their
use entails less risk of an oil spill.
(B)Oil spills caused by tankers have generally been
more serious than those caused by offshore
operations.
(0 The impact of offshore operations on the
environment can be controlled by careful
management.
(D)Offshore operations usually damage the ocean
floor, but tankers rarely cause such damage.
(E)Importing oil on tankers is currently less
expensive than drilling for it offshore.
正确答案为A
LZ想问一下可以对通过否定premise来weaken吗？
因为在看版里sdcar的【逻辑入门一】的帖子时有这么一句话，而且我记得xdf的老师也说过，如下：
In CR, all premises given in the stimulus are considered true. However, we can analyze the argument by focusing on the logic which connects the premise and the conclusion in an argument.
而回过来看答案A，说Tanker...less risk...，正好是否定了原文中的premise（but importing oil on tankerspresently entails an even greater such risk perbarrel of oil），所以说我有点疑惑可以这样釜底抽薪的weaken吗？OG的解释是现在不等于将来，但是选项中并没有明确说啊
鉴于上述想法小女当时选择的是D，我是觉得对海床的破坏可以成为一个有力的反对offshore operation的观点，是不是我想多了？
谢谢！！ |
|
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2012-2-7 20:36:18
收藏
收藏
楼主
