[讨论]一条值得讨论的题目FeiFei-21

iversontan

我相信总有人会做对,FeiFei-21，你选什么？

21. Historian: We can learn about the medical history of individuals through chemical analysis of their hair. It is likely, for example, that Isaac Newton’s psychological problems were due to mercury poisoning; traces of mercury were found in his hair. Analysis is now being done on a lock of Beethoven’s hair. Although no convincing argument has shown that Beethoven ever had a venereal disease, some people hypothesize that venereal disease caused his deafness. Since mercury was commonly ingested in Beethoven’s time to treat venereal disease, if researchers find a trace of mercury in his hair, we can conclude that this hypothesis is correct.

Which one of the following is an assumption on which the historian’s argument depends?

A.
                None of the mercury introduced into the body can be eliminated.

B.
                Some people in Beethoven’s time did not ingest mercury.

C.
                Mercury is an effective treatment for venereal disease.

D.
                Mercury poisoning can cause deafness in people with venereal disease.

E.
                Beethoven suffered from psychological problems of the same severity as Newton’s.

看了lawyer的解题思路。觉得有些缺失。可能是我功底太差。希望拿出来大家能讨论一下。引用lawyer的推理：

原文推理：因为那时人们用M去治性病，所以如果发现头发中有M，就知某某有性病（性病导致耳聋）。隐含的假设是没有别的原因导致头发中有M。B排除其他原因导致头发有M，故为假设。将B取非：
            All （注意不是SOME） people in Beethoven’s time ingested mercury。则说明头发中的M并非治性病导致，而是吃M导致，原文结论不能成立。

我觉得lawyer原文的推理有一个问题。就是默认了hypothesis（性病导致耳聋）。段子最后说：如果发现M 就说明HY是对的。

原文推理：人们用M去治性病，如果发现M，就知道有性病。这是对的。按B的说法，只能推到有性病而已，而假设的还要证明是性病导致耳聋啊。B根本推不到。是我理解有问题吗？

段子最后明明是说，有M，假设就是对的。但是不是把假设作为一个premise提供给你的啊！

请指教。谢谢

原帖位置：http://forum.chasedream.com/dispbbs.asp?boardid=24&replyid=1856253&id=64587&page=1&skin=0&Star=1

ashura

我和你有相同的疑问。我的回复贴在原贴里了。但是好像论坛的编辑功能有问题，把我的回复弄乱了，在这里再贴一遍。

B 倒是可以推出因为得病才用水银，并由此推出Beethoven可能得过性病。 但是题干里没说用了水银就一定能导致耳聋呀？

D 却搭了这个桥。 把水银中毒和耳聋联系起来了。

我知道feifei135的正确答案是B。但是实在是觉得D更好。 请NN指教吧。

everann

situation:

some people hypothesize that venereal disease caused his deafness=>
it is possible that the venereal disease caused his deafness

mercury was commonly ingested to treat venereal disease=>
he might ingested mercury to treat venereal disease

argument:

if mercury is found in his hair, we can conclude that venereal caused his deafness

reasoning:

what can a trace of mercury in his hair mean? what if mercury was also ingested to treat other diseases? in that case, a trace of mercury cannot indicate venereal disease. to reach the researchers' conclusion, an assumption is needed here to assure that mercury can only be ingested to treat venereal disease and for no other purpose.

to negate choice B: all people in Beethoven's time ingest mercury. it this is the case, then a trace of mercury in hair will become meaningless, thus the argument is weakened.

jonathan1987

up