求助一道逻辑题，如何判断“想多了”与“合理推理”

smilekitten

各位可爱的战友们，求助一道逻辑题
Ask for help！It will be much appreciated if any guidance can be provided.

Journalist: In physics journals, the number of articles reporting the results of experiments involving particle accelerators was lower last year than it had been in previous years. Several of the particle accelerators at major research institutions were out of service the year before last for repairs, so it is likely that the low number of articles was due to the decline in availability of particle accelerators.
　　Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the journalist’s argument?
　　A.Every article based on experiments with particle accelerators that was submitted for publication last year actually was published.
　　B.The average time scientists must wait for access to a particle accelerator has declined over the last several years.
　　C.The number of physics journals was the same last year as in previous years.
　　D.Particle accelerators can be used for more than one group of experiments in any given year.
　　E.Recent changes in the editorial policies of several physics journals have decreased the likelihood that articles concerning particle accelerator research will be accepted for publication.
请问BD如何排除呢？如何判断自己究竟是“想多了”还是“合理推理”呢？

你是认真的吗

这里应该不是想多了和合理推理的问题？

weaken题一个很重要的方法是引入他因。而D的话，关注一下in any given year，也就是说这个条件是没有变过的，那么粒子加速器的减少依然是有可能减少文章的发表的。而B的话引入了另外一个变化的原因，所以合理。

至于过度推理和合理推理，个人见解是：这个推理和前提可以直接推出结论或者削弱结论的，就叫做合理推理，否则则是过度推理，加入了自己的结论。

例如：
前提；A很喜欢B
结论：A和B在一起了

1）B拒绝了A → 本来前提和结论存在一个gap，通过B拒绝了A直接扩大了这个gap，甚至否定了- - 以此来达到削弱的目的
2）A不是一个好人 → 假如选了这个，那么我们的潜意识是认为A不是一个好人，B因此拒绝了A，所以削弱了他们不在一起的事实，这中间就加入了自己的假设了

smilekitten

你是认真的吗 发表于 2017-11-28 18:23
这里应该不是想多了和合理推理的问题？

weaken题一个很重要的方法是引入他因。而D的话，关注一下in any gi ...

Thanks!