lsat 6-3-22

nina_nn

The true scientific significance of a group of unusual fossils discovered by the paleontologist Charles Walcott is more likely to be reflected in a recent classification than it was in Walcott’s own classification. Walcott was, after all, a prominent member of the scientific establishment. His classifications are thus unlikely to have done anything but confirm what established science had already taken to be true.

Which one of the following most accurately describes a questionable technique used in the argument?

(A) It draws conclusions about the merit of a position and about the content of that position from evidence about the position’s source.

(B) It cites two pieces of evidence, each of which is both questionable and unverifiable, and uses this evidence to support its conclusions.

(C) It bases a conclusion on two premises that contradict each other and minimizes this contradiction by the vagueness of the terms employed.

(D) It attempts to establish the validity of a claim, which is otherwise unsupported, by denying the truth of the opposite of that claim.

(E) It analyzes the past on the basis of social and political categories that properly apply only to the present and uses the results of this analysis to support its conclusion.

答案是A,哪位大牛解释一下~~

dphxmg

Premises:
    1.    CW has discovered a group of fossils.
    2.    CW is a member of the scientific establishment.
    3.    CW has his own classification of fossils.
Intermediate conclusion:
    That group of fossils are more likely to used to confirm established science.
Finally conclusion:
    A recent classification is more likely to reflect the scientific significance than CW's own classification is.

ssssss

The true scientific significance of a group of unusual fossils discovered by the paleontologist Charles Walcott is more likely to be reflected in a recent classification than it was in Walcott’s own classification. Walcott was, after all, a prominent member of the scientific establishment. His classifications are thus unlikely to have done anything but confirm what established science had already taken to be true.

 

 

Which one of the following most accurately describes a questionable technique used in the argument?

This is a method of reasoning type of question. You have to find the fault reasoning in the argument. For this type of problem you have to understand the argument and abstract the method of reasoning from it.

 

 

(A)   It draws conclusions about the merit of a position and about the content of that position from evidence about the position’s source.

Bingo this describe the method of reasoning of this argument exactly.

and this argument has a major flaw, that's why it is questionable. The Logical flaw is Circular reasoning. Because you can not use your theory to prove you are right.

merit of a position is Walcott us a prominent member of the scientific establishment.

content of that position:  is the Walcott’s own classification.

position’s source: is Walcott itself.
   

 

 

(B) It cites two pieces of evidence, each of which is both questionable and unverifiable, and uses this evidence to support its conclusions.

It does sites two pieces of evidence both not all are questionable.

 

 

(C) It bases a conclusion on two premises that contradict each other and minimizes this contradiction by the vagueness of the terms employed.

The two premises are not contradicted with each other.

 

 

(D) It attempts to establish the validity of a claim, which is otherwise unsupported, by denying the truth of the opposite of that claim.

In the argument, it does not denying the truth of he opposite of that claim. This is describing other form of logical flaw.

 

 

(E) It analyzes the past on the basis of social and political categories that properly apply only to the present and uses the results of this analysis to support its conclusion.

The argument did not analyzes the past on the basis of social and political categories

[此贴子已经被作者于2007-3-7 9:58:27编辑过]

templar

我一下子没看出来有3楼解释里说的那种逻辑关系。我的做法简单点：BCDE明显是不对的，可以排除掉。A的话，虽然看不懂，但是只剩下这个，就选他了。

后来仔细读了N遍，才看出来一点逻辑关系。看来还需要好好练练。

2楼dphxmg，你的Intermediate conclusion:
    That group of fossils are more likely to used to confirm established science.

有点问题，文章里并没有提到That group of fossils are more likely to used to confirm
        established science

zxzhyzcy

以下是引用ssssss在2007-3-7 9:56:00的发言：

(A)   It draws conclusions about the merit of a position and about the content of that position from evidence about the position’s source.

merit of a position is Walcott us a prominent member of the scientific establishment.

content of that position:  is the Walcott’s own classification.

position’s source: is Walcott itself.
   

还是不明白……

请问这个题目的结论和前提到底是怎样区分的呢？

icewarm

Premise 1: The true
scientific significance of a group of unusual fossils discovered by the
paleontologist Charles Walcott is more likely to be reflected in a
recent classification than it was in Walcott’s own classification.

Premise 2: Walcott was, after all, a prominent member of the scientific establishment.

Conclusion: His classifications are thus unlikely to have done anything but confirm what established science had already taken to be true.

Premise 1 states that there two classifications and makes it clear that the recent classification better refects the scientific significance of the new discovery than W's classification. In short: two classifications, one is better than the other regarding the significance of the new discovery.

Conclusion: W's classification would simply confirm but not DISAGREE with what established science had already taken to be true.

The only evidence used to support the conlusion is premise 2: W is a prominent scientist. Of course, it does not allow the conclusion to be properly drawn. So what W is a prominent scientist, this does not rule out the possibility that he would disagree with what established science holding as true.

zxzhyzcy

是不是说 the merit of a position and about the content of that position 就是His classifications are thus unlikely to have done anything but confirm what established science had already taken to be true.

而the position's source就是Walcott was, after all, a prominent member of the scientific establishment.

？

但是总觉得merit在这里面好像没有体现吧……还是有点晕~真不好意思~

zsazsa

以下是引用nina_nn在2007-3-4 11:13:00的发言：

The true scientific significance of a group of unusual fossils discovered by the paleontologist Charles Walcott is more likely to be reflected in a recent classification than it was in Walcott’s own classification. Walcott was, after all, a prominent member of the scientific establishment. His classifications are thus unlikely to have done anything but confirm what established science had already taken to be true.

Which one of the following most accurately describes a questionable technique used in the argument?

(A) It draws conclusions about the merit of a position and about the content of that position from evidence about the position’s source.

(B) It cites two pieces of evidence, each of which is both questionable and unverifiable, and uses this evidence to support its conclusions.

(C) It bases a conclusion on two premises that contradict each other and minimizes this contradiction by the vagueness of the terms employed.

(D) It attempts to establish the validity of a claim, which is otherwise unsupported, by denying the truth of the opposite of that claim.

(E) It analyzes the past on the basis of social and political categories that properly apply only to the present and uses the results of this analysis to support its conclusion.

答案是A,哪位大牛解释一下~~

Conclusion: The significance is better reflected by R than W.

Premise1: W established a science.(But the truth of significance is suspended)

Premise2:W is a memeber of S.

Mid-conclusion: W confirms what established science had already taken to be true.(In fact that's what the job of S)

Flaw1: Take a characteristic of a party as a characteristic of every single memeber of it without justification.

Flaw2: Shift from "truth" to "true significance"(But this weaker flaw escaped from choices)

Here in the Choise A, "merit and content" refers to the same thing, "significance", while the only basis for the conclusion is that take for granted that S  doed something. Although W comes from that party, it dons't mean s/he will do the same thing when classifying. Thus, we got the answer.