请教逻辑og-14题

ffanghua

og逻辑的第14道题我实在不理解，有那位高手师傅可以帮忙解释一下，我的邮箱ffanghua@hotmail.com,非常感谢了

八戒

能不能把题目写出来呀！！！！

我想除了了zeros以外，没有人会把OG放旁边，一边上网一边看的！
   
如果有的话，云里来雾里去的！！
谁能看懂呀！！

多谢！

ffanghua

Opponents of laws that require automobile drivers and passengers to wear seat belts argue that in a free society people have the right to take risks as long as the people do not harm other as a result of taking the risks .As a result ,they conclude that it should be each person's decision whether or not to wear a seat belt .
which of the following ,if true ,nost seriously weakens the conclusion drawn above ?
A   many new cars are built with seat belts that automatically fasten when someone sits in the front seat .
B   automobile insurance rates for all automobile owners are higher because of the need ot pay for the increased injuries of deaths of people not wearing seat belts .
C   passagers in airplanes are required to wear seat belts during takeoffs and landings .
D   the rate of automobile fatalities in states that do not have mandatory seat belt laws os greater than the rate of fatalities in states that do have such laws
E   in autonobile accidents ,a great number of passengers who do not wear seat belts are injured that are passengers who do wear seat belts .

八戒

呵.........我中午也刚回去看了！！

前提是：

Opponents of laws that require automobile drivers and passengers to wear seat belts argue that in a free society people have the right to take risks

解释2是：

as long as the people do not harm other as a result of taking the risks

演绎方向：因果型！

一般来说，因果型的weaken是他因解释前提即可！

可这道题的答案是：B、
也就是他因否认结论！
因为他使insurance升高，所以伤害了其他人！

ffanghua

谢谢八戒大哥

耳朵

谢谢！
关键在于怎么理解“伤害他人”这个概念。通常国内的交通安全的宣传，都是说要注意遵守规章制度（戴安全带也属于其中之一），减少事故发生率，免得造成自己和别人的生命和财产的损失，对自己和对别人都有好处。如果从这个角度理解，那么应该选D。我就是选的D。：（
不过想想也对，不带安全带，万一发生事故，应该是驾驶者受到的伤害更大，跟其他人没有必然的联系。而如果驾驶者收到伤害，保险公司要赔偿，因此提高了保险金，这对于其他守法的驾驶者来说是不公平的，因而是一种“伤害”可以称为是“间接伤害”。
不过，根据费费的解释，通常出现无关内容的选项是要淘汰的。这里的保险公司就是文中没有提到的，而且也是weaken的结论，不是weaken原因，叫人想不通！

rose1100xu

weaken可以有无关内容出现的。

swlfx

可否将保险和保险公司等同理解，就不至于出现新的概念。

丑得老婆哭

以下是引用耳朵在2004-1-31 12:21:00的发言：
谢谢！
关键在于怎么理解“伤害他人”这个概念。通常国内的交通安全的宣传，都是说要注意遵守规章制度（戴安全带也属于其中之一），减少事故发生率，免得造成自己和别人的生命和财产的损失，对自己和对别人都有好处。如果从这个角度理解，那么应该选D。我就是选的D。：（
不过想想也对，不带安全带，万一发生事故，应该是驾驶者受到的伤害更大，跟其他人没有必然的联系。而如果驾驶者收到伤害，保险公司要赔偿，因此提高了保险金，这对于其他守法的驾驶者来说是不公平的，因而是一种“伤害”可以称为是“间接伤害”。
不过，根据费费的解释，通常出现无关内容的选项是要淘汰的。这里的保险公司就是文中没有提到的，而且也是weaken的结论，不是weaken原因，叫人想不通！

车险中有一种叫作“弟三者责任险”，是强制性保险，这是汽车拥有者必须购买的保险，目的是出车祸后，能够第三者（非汽车拥有者）以赔偿，所以无论谁受伤，只要保了险，保险公司都要赔偿。

mutegirl

以下是引用ffanghua在2003-8-12 13:24:00的发言：
Opponents of laws that require automobile drivers and passengers to wear seat belts argue that in a free society people have the right to take risks as long as the people do not harm other as a result of taking the risks .As a result ,they conclude that it should be each person's decision whether or not to wear a seat belt .
which of the following ,if true ,nost seriously weakens the conclusion drawn above ?
A   many new cars are built with seat belts that automatically fasten when someone sits in the front seat .
B   automobile insurance rates for all automobile owners are higher because of the need ot pay for the increased injuries of deaths of people not wearing seat belts .
C   passagers in airplanes are required to wear seat belts during takeoffs and landings .
D   the rate of automobile fatalities in states that do not have mandatory seat belt laws os greater than the rate of fatalities in states that do have such laws
E   in autonobile accidents ,a great number of passengers who do not wear seat belts are injured that are passengers who do wear seat belts .

推理过程:只要不伤害其他人，就有权利选择是否佩戴安全带

结论：每个人有权利决定自己是否带安全带

削弱：不带安全带又确实伤害了其他人（不符合不伤害他人的前提）

[此贴子已经被作者于2005-10-11 21:42:06编辑过]