[求助]大全-11-18 & 大全-12-12

11-18

Many plant varieties used in industrially developed nations to improve cultivated crops come from less developed nations. No compensation is paid on the grounds that the plants used are “the common heritage of humanity.” Such reasoning is, however, flawed. After all, no one suggests that coal, oil, and ores should be extracted without payment.

Which of the following best describes an aspect of the method used by the author in the argument above?

(A) The author proceeds from a number of specific observations to a tentative generalization.

(B) The author applies to the case under discussion facts about phenomena assumed to be similar in some relevant respect.

(C) A position is strengthened by showing that the opposite of that position would have logically absurd consequences.

(D) A line of reasoning is called into question on the grounds that it confuses cause and effect in a causal relation.（B）

(E) An argument is analyzed by separating statements of fact from individual value judgments.

我觉得C也有道理啊. 为什么不对呢?

12-12:

After graduating from high school, people rarely multiply fractions or discuss ancient Rome, but they are confronted daily with decisions relating to home economics. Yet whereas mathematics and history are required courses in the high school curriculum, home economics is only an elective, and few students choose to take it.

Which of the following positions would be best supported by the considerations above?

(A) If mathematics and history were not required courses, few students would choose to take them.  

(B) Whereas home economics would be the most useful subject for people facing the decisions they must make in daily life, often mathematics and history can also help them face these decisions.

(C) If it is important to teach high school students subjects that relate to decisions that will confront them in their daily lives, then home economics should be made an important part of the high school curriculum.

(D) Mathematics, history, and other courses that are not directly relevant to a person’s daily life should not be a required part of the high school curriculum.（C）

(E) Unless high schools put more emphasis on nonacademic subjects like home economics, people graduating from high school will never feel comfortable about making the decisions that will confront them in their daily lives.

这题我选了A, 还挺有把握呢! 又错了. 错的还不服气. C 是有道理,可是我排除不了A

恳请帮助! 盼回复!

一点拙见。

(C) A position is strengthened by showing that the opposite of that position would have logically absurd consequences.

昨天老上不来逻辑部分, 今天一来看见有回复,挺高兴.谢谢

下面将我是怎么理解这两题(可能是误入歧途)的思路解释一下:

对于11-18, Many plant varieties used in industrially developed nations to improve cultivated crops come from less developed nations. No compensation is paid on the grounds that the plants used are “the common heritage of humanity.” Such reasoning is, however, flawed. After all, no one suggests that coal, oil, and ores should be extracted without payment.

我认为: position 指的是作者的conclusion: "Such reasoning is, however, flawed"

12-12:

After graduating from high school, people rarely multiply fractions or discuss ancient Rome, but they are confronted daily with decisions relating to home economics. Yet whereas mathematics and history are required courses in the high school curriculum, home economics is only an elective, and few students choose to take it.

Which of the following positions would be best supported by the considerations above?

(A) If mathematics and history were not required courses, few students would choose to take them.  

(C) If it is important to teach high school students subjects that relate to decisions that will confront them in their daily lives, then home economics should be made an important part of the high school curriculum.

我觉得argument说了数学和历史在日常生活中根本很少用

econ在daily life中经常涉及,但是因为是选修课,所以学生很少选==> 因为是选修课, 所以才没有很多人去选, 尽管很实用. 所以我觉得学校对课程做不做必修要求才是导致学生选课多少的依据. 看上去A 很不错啊!

同理: 要是数学和历史不做必修要求, 才不会有那么多人选呢. (想想啊, 连和生活那么有关的econ,只要是选修课都少人问津,更别说数学和历史了)

C, 我无法将其和argument里面的逻辑推理过程联系起来.

还请进一步讨论啊! 多多指教.

-----------------------------------------

你知道我在等你吗?

顶一顶, 谢谢帮助!

not in the opposite position.

the author uses similar example to show that the former argument is flawed