请教Lsat-3-1-16&Lsat-3-1-17

云淡风轻

16.    The current proposal to give college students a broader choice in planning their own courses of study should be abandoned. The students who are supporting the proposal will never be satisfied, no matter what requirements are established. Some of these students have reached their third year without declaring a major. One first-year student has failed to complete four required courses. Several others have indicated a serious indifference to grades and intellectual achievement.
A flaw in the argument is that it does which one of the following?
(A) avoids the issue by focusing on supporters of the proposal
(B) argues circularly by assuming the conclusion is true in stating the premises
(C) fails to define the critical term “satisfied”
(D) distorts the proposal advocated by opponents
(E) uses the term “student” equivocally

正确答案是A，不明白为何focus on supporters就是avoiding the issue了呢？觉得后面所说的都是broad choice给supporter带来的种种不好啊，这不正迎合了“should be abandoned”的主题吗？是我没弄懂题干的意思吧？

Questions 17-18
The question whether intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is certainly imprecise, because we are not sure how different from us something might be and still count as “intelligent life.” Yet we cannot just decide to define “intelligent life” in some more precise way since it is likely that we will find and recognize intelligent life elsewhere in the universe only if we leave our definitions open to new, unimagined possibilities.
17.    The argument can most reasonably be interpreted as an objection to which one of the following claims?
(A) The question whether intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is one that will never be correctly answered.
(B) Whether or not there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe, our understanding of intelligent life is limited.
(C) The question about the existence of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe must be made more precise if we hope to answer it correctly.
(D) The question whether there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe is so imprecise as to be meaningless.
(E) The question whether there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe is one we should not spend our time trying to answer.

不明白题干主要说啥问题，所以对BCDE几个选项也难以区分，请各位指点一二。谢谢！

番茄炒蛋

16，为了迎合一种说法就只说它的缺点，不说它的优点，这就是它的flaw了
17题选c，以后还是麻烦你把答案写出来了
这里说的是objection，原文说要找到外星怪物就不要把这个定义给定死了
C中说只有定死了定义才能，，，，，，
所以二者当然是矛盾的咯

Snazzy

HI, i just got some points here. by not agreeing with the proposal, the author didn't analyze the proposal itself but started to "attack" the supporters of the proposals, the students. Isn't the question belonging to "PERSONAL ATTACH" kind?


16. the current proposal to give college students a broader choice in planning their own courses of study should be abandoned. the students who are supporting the proposal will never be satisfied, no matter what requirements are established. some of these students have reached their third year without declaring a major. one first-year student has failed to complete four required courses. several others have indicated a serious indifference to grades and intellectual achievement.
a flaw in the argument is that it does which one of the following?
(a) avoids the issue by focusing on supporters of the proposal
(b) argues circularly by assuming the conclusion is true in stating the premises
(c) fails to define the critical term “satisfied”
(d) distorts the proposal advocated by opponents
(e) uses the term “student” equivocally

Bensontuo

云淡风轻 发表于 2003-11-27 14:48
16.    The current proposal to give college students a broader choice in plannin ...

question 16:

Conclusion: We should stop doing something

Premises: Because people don't like it.


Well... regardless of whether some people like it or not, why would it does have something to do for abandoning something ? What if the reason why people dont like it is because by doing that thing it would benefit the whole but not some of the particular cases ?

No doubt, A.

Question 17

We are asked to treat the argument as the weaken answer to one of the options as follows. In the other word, what is really happening here is " If the argument is true, then which of the following must be false. "

So, If " one of the following must be true, then it also must be true that the original argument must be false ", and if the original argument must be false is the necessary condition based on the sufficient condition of the must be true answer, then one of our necessary assumptions must never be  " If one of the following options must be true, then our original argument must be true and the contrapositive of it.



original argument:

P3: If we do not leave our definitions open to new, unimagined possibilities ---> we would not find or not recognize intelligent life elsewhere in the universe

P2: we can't just decide to define " intelligent life " in some more precise way

P1: we are not sure how differnet from us something might be and still count as intelligent life

C: the question whether intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is certainly imprecise


The conclusion of the argument stated clearly that it is certainly impossible to answer the question precisely

Clearly weaken the argument of C.

A. correctly vs imprecise are 2 different concepts.

B. It could be or could not be correctly answer, its about the question itself is imprecise.

D. The core of is based upon meaningless or not, but not precise or not.

E. whether should we spend time or not is totally not relevant to whether the question itself is imprecise or not