请教逻辑og-14题

iamwuyan

要仔细看原文的逻辑, 原文说"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", 说的是判断标准是TAKE RISK的人(不系安全带的人)会不会伤害别人

E选项如果乘客不系安全带, 那是乘客自己TAKE RISK, 到头来祸害的也是他们自己, 与别人无关, 从而对原文没有产生影响

kevin070707

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 .

A：do not harm others; B: each person could decide whether to wear a seat belt.

A->B

To weaken, not A or C is a premise of A.

So, I could say the fact is that people do not wear a seat belt is harmful to others.

Like B does, the people who don't want to wear seat belt make the insurance higher and does harmful to others people.

helenzane

以下是引用iamwuyan在2008-9-20 12:54:00的发言：
要仔细看原文的逻辑, 原文说"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", 说的是判断标准是TAKE RISK的人(不系安全带的人)会不会伤害别人

E选项如果乘客不系安全带, 那是乘客自己TAKE RISK, 到头来祸害的也是他们自己, 与别人无关, 从而对原文没有产生影响

谢谢谢谢！恍然大悟

伯爵奶茶

18楼的katrinaxy520    

我觉得这道题就是反对了前提．结论是由前提推导出来的，所以质疑前提就是削弱结论的一种．

现在总算是有些做题的感觉了，看了ＬＡＷＹＥＲ的总结启发真的很大．

关于削弱题，只有是条件型结论的题目，答案不能否定条件．在这里，条件是结论的一部分．用ＬＡＷＹＥＲ曾经举的一个例子：上ＣＤ２４小时ＧＭＡＴ就能考８００分．这就是个条件型的结论．不可能上ＣＤ２４小时这不是削弱了结论，这类题目是要说在充分条件成立的情况下必要条件不一定成立，在这里上ＣＤ２４小时就是充分条件．

我自己就把前提和条件弄混了，总认为答案不可以否认前提的．．．．其实不然，在削弱题中否定前提就是对结论的削弱．

这是我自己的一点感受．和大家分享一下．

说的太好了，把我一直困惑的问题解决了，非常感谢。

伯爵奶茶

此题  as a result 前面的内容全部是前提，所以是可以否定的。  此类题目还有og10th—61、96等。   都是直接否定前提来进行削弱。

另外如og10th—68  是条件型结论题目   注意这两种类型题目下结论方式的不同！！！

A drug that is highly effective in treating many types of infection can, at present, be obtained only from the bark of the ibora, a tree that is quite rare in the wild. It takes the bark of 5,000 tree to make one kilogram of the drug. It follows, therefore, that continued production of the drug must inevitably lead to the ibora’s extinction.

 

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument above?

(A) The drug made from ibora bark is dispensed to doctors from a central authority.

(B) The drug made from ibora bark is expensive to produce.

(C) The leaves of the ibora are used in a number of medical products.

(D) The ibora can be propagated from cuttings and grown under cultivation. D

(E) The ibora generally grows in largely inaccessible places.
            

此题It follows前面的内容是前提， 需要注意的是continued production of the drug 是条件，条件是不能否定的。因此E选项由于否定了条件，所以是不正确的。       此题的正确选项是D。但是如果有个选项说   其实这种树在野外很多。   这个选项也是对的，因为它是否定了文中前提：a tree that is quite rare in the wild   所以也是正确选项！

RSKV

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 .

我能理解B是正确答案，但是A为什么不对啊？我是这样想，A说上新车自动系好安全带，不就是说明系上安全带根本不是自己可以决定的嘛？为什么不能是削弱呢？请教大家了，谢谢！

hallieJJ

本来做这题时就没注意A过，不过看了LS的提问，又纠结了

a像是 他因（安全带是自动系上的）导致结论（人们可以选择系安全带）被否定

不知俺的这个理解哪里出错了，请NN指教！！

小西儿

你这一说把我也整迷糊了，但是看看就恍然大悟了。
那有人坐后面呢？  不是就伤害了他人么

还有A里的NEW CAR  等新概念，，也很值得怀疑。

emmahiggins09

呃我想得更加简单，削弱题就是要NEW information 是结论不成立。
题目的结论是 as a result 后面的句子：they conclude that it should be each person's decision whether or not to wear a seat belt.

所以要找的选项是conclusion不成立的. 所以寻找的方向应该是 it shold NOT be EACH PERSON'S decsion.

选项B 给出 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 . 所以不是each person's decision 了因为这已经影响到了其他人。

是我想简单了？

水沫清凉

看08新东方逻辑讲义时看到了这道老题目_(:зゝ∠)_

条件：只要不对别人造成伤害
结论：自己决定要不要带安全带

答案B说明了不带安全带确实给别人造成了伤害，否定了前提
分析错误选项
C没有对别人造成伤害，其实是出于好心为了让你没事，记得知乎有问题说飞机上每个规定都是生命换来的。。。
D说没有强制规定带安全带的州死亡率更高，其实也是没有对别人造成伤害，没有否定前提
E与D类似，都是说自己不带安全带比较容易出事
A说新车开快时坐前面的人的安全带自动收紧，也和后几个选项一个道理，没有伤害他人只是保护自己