- UID
- 1027169
- 在线时间
- 小时
- 注册时间
- 2014-7-16
- 最后登录
- 1970-1-1
- 主题
- 帖子
- 性别
- 保密
|
看完了茅塞顿开的一段manhattan上的解释:
Yes, this one's about reverse causation. Specifically, the author notes a correlation between levels of immune system activity and scores on test of mental health, and then uses the mere correlation to conclude a cause-effect relationship. Just because milk and cereal are correlated doesn't mean that one causes the other.
So, the argument concludes that specifically, if you have a good immune system, then you'll have protection against mental illness. The reverse causation could be equally true though: if you have a mental illness, then it could negatively affect your immune system. Answer D negates this possibility - which is the form a "reverse causation" assumption is always going to take. The author must assume that the reverse possibility is NOT the case in order to assume that his cause-effect conclusion IS the case.
看了前几页都是关于因果倒置的判断,但是自己不明白怎么就确定为这种题型了,看完这个终于明白为什么能走到因果倒置这一步。
以上两段简而言之就是,因为前提是两者(没有谁指向谁)相关,所以既可以是A cause B, 也可以是B cause A,所以如果需要把其中一个确定为结论,就必须要否定另一个 |
|