一道逻辑题想不明白求解！！

小天才i

In many scientific disciplines, scientists generally do not do highly creative work beyond the age of forty, a tendency that has normally been taken to show that aging carries with it a loss of creative capacity.  However, by the age of forty most scientists have been working in their chosen field for at least fifteen years, so an alternative explanation is that spending too long in a single field reduces the opportunity for creative thought.

Investigating which of the following would be most useful in choosing between the competing explanations described above?





A. Whether among those scientists who do highly creative work beyond age forty a large proportion entered their field at a considerably later age than is common
B. Whether scientists' choice of research projects tends to be influenced by their own belief that their most creative work will be done relatively early in their career
C. Whether scientists who are older than forty tend to find more satisfaction in other activities, such as teaching and mentoring, than they do in pursuing their own research
D. Whether funding agencies are more inclined to award research grants to scientists who are veterans in their field than to scientists who are relative newcomers
E. Whether there is significant variation among scientific fields in the average age at which scientists working in those fields are at their most productive


为什么答案是A
通常来说超过40就没成果了
超过40还有成果的科学家已经是特殊情况了 再用这些特殊情况来判断另一个条件 这合理吗？
我认为除非原题说明超过40岁 和 在一个领域工作太久 是完全独立的事件 否则不能这样判断

一番章鱼

呃我没看懂你说的"用特殊情况判断另一个条件"想表达什么，但你肯定跑偏了。
重要的是，这是个相关变因果的题
作者的推理是：根据“①”和“②超过四十岁的科学家已经研究了十五年以上”这两个相关因素，推导出②导致①
那么A给出的就是：whether①不存在且②不存在，即“做创造性工作”是“研究时间短的人”，即无因无果。对whether回答yes就是加强，回答no，即无果有因，就是削弱