OG－14

thierryf

 Opponents of laws that require automobile drivers and passengers to wear seat belts argue that in a free society people have the right to take risks as long as the people do not harm other as a result of taking the risks. As a result, they conclude that it should be each person’s decision whether or not to wear a seat belt.

 

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the conclusion drawn above?

A. Many new cars are built with seat belts that automatically fasten when someone sits in the front seat.

B. Automobile insurance rates for all automobile owners are higher because of the need to pay for the increased injuries or deaths of people not wearing seat belts.

C. Passengers in airplanes are required to wear seat belts during takeoffs and landings.

D. The rate of automobile fatalities in states that do not have mandatory seat belt laws is greater than the rate of fatalities in states that do have such laws.
                B

E. In automobile accidents, a greater number of passengers who do not wear seat belts are injured than are passengers who do wear seat belts.
                

不是什么难题，但是有个问题一直想不明白

lawyer说，充分必要型的问题的削弱，可以用承认充分条件成立，必要条件不成立

这道题里有个条件关系是as long as(if) no harm, 就可以decision

即no harm－>decision,那充分条件就是no harm,必要条件就是decision咯?

这样就不对了阿,推不出正确答案了

翻以前的老贴,看到pipidovelee说,是这样推的Decision -> no harm (No harm 是必要条件)

百思不得其解,请高人指点,谢拉

[此贴子已经被作者于2007-8-27 19:56:09编辑过]

yichousun

argue:people have the right to take risks and the people do not harm other as a result of taking the risks.

conclusion:it should be each person’s decision whether or not to wear a seat belt.

逻辑错误有两种类型：1 argue本身存在问题。 2 argue没有问题，在推理的过程中出了问题。

这两种状况都会导致conclusion错误。

C是明显的否定的do not harm others,所以就weaken了！