强烈再问: Lsat-13-4-19

FionaLiang

19. Jane: According to an article in this newsmagazine, children’s hand-eye coordination suffers when they spend a great amount of time watching television. Therefore, we must restrict the amount of time Jacqueline and Mildred are allowed to watch television.
Alan: Rubbish! The article says that only children under three are affected in that way. Jacqueline is ten and Mildred is eight. Therefore, we need not restrict their television viewing.
Alan’s argument against Jane’s conclusion makes which one of the following errors in
reasoning?
(A) It relies on the same source that Jane cited in support of her conclusion.
(B) It confuses undermining an argument in support of a given conclusion with showing that the conclusion itself is false.
(C) It does not address the main point of Jane’s argument and focuses instead on a side issue.
(D) It makes an irrelevant appeals to an authority.
(E) It fails to distinguish the consequences of a certain practice from the causes of the practice.
B.为什么对呢？
看了以前总结的对19题的分析，还是不理解，请哪位大虾再指点一下吧！原来分析如下：
j的前提是长时间看电视会损坏孩子的眼手协调，结论是要限制两个孩子看电视。
而a回答是对前提的质疑（范围），即不是所有的孩子而是仅在一年龄段的才会受此影响。因此并不是反对结论本身，而是将削弱支持结论的论述confuse成了指出结论本身错误（B）。
A回答中有两部分：1）质疑前提；2）指出两个孩子不属于前提所说范围，并结论说“no need to restrict their television viewing"。 这句话既可以理解为不限制他们看电视，也可以理解为看电视的时间也都不限制。 那也就是很明确的反对了J。不能说没有反对J的结论。

FionaLiang

拜托了!哪位帮忙解释一下吧!

FionaLiang

求求大家了!就帮忙看看吧!

bluevironika

很难的一个题目我觉得，我就斗胆的说说吧。

jane说文章里面说了。when they spend a great amount of time watching television，所以要限制他们看电视的时间。

alan说的是，文章里面说的是对三岁以下的才这样，所以我们不需要限制他们看电视（这件事情）。

所以，答案b说，It confuses undermining an argument in support of a given conclusion with showing that the conclusion itself is false。

alan 的说法，将质疑一个结论的支持陈述（适用年龄）和支出一个结论的缺陷（限制看电视的时间：而这个是本来alan该反对的）混为一谈。

请指教，我也在学习中。而且是知道了答案才这么想的，希望xdjm们能有更好的思路！

而且从这个题目来看,lsat跟gmat 的思路是不一样的,我们还是该多看og和gwd.

[此贴子已经被作者于2006-1-5 20:23:31编辑过]

lawyer_1

JANE从一篇文章（前提）得出要限制两个小孩看电视的时间（结论）。 ALAN指出这篇文章不适应这两个小孩，这点只能证明JANE的证据不足以证明他的结论（WEAKEN jane的推理），但ALAN却以此得出结论说JANE的结论是错的（否定结论）。所以B对。

sandyno0425

１１