OG-14的总结

rimm853

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?

 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.
                

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.

 

这个题目很tricky。首先逻辑题应该是premise到conclusion的推理过程，常见问题是1）推理的过程不对，这样的话结论自然也就不对了，2）原因或者结果本身不对，其实结果不对，也就是由于推理过程不严谨。要support---就找一个能支持结论的就行了，要么是一个例子，如OG-17，要么就是

就补充原因。weaken--与其相反，驳斥结论不成立或结论的得出有问题---推理的基础有问题。

 

废话少说。 OG14:  Premise: As long as a driver doesnot hurt another car/person not including anyone in the car-----conclusion: the driver doesnot need to wear the belt.   显然conclusion是没有任何可以weaken---只有从premise和推理过程下手。即if the driver hurt anyone or has the potential to hurt anyone outside his/her car, such as statement will weaken the conclusion.

 

选项分析：A、C很容易kick out， because both of them do not have any clue with the harm or potential ham caused by people not wearing the belt.

E---cannot weaken the logic---because the driver just hurt him/passage, it doesnot mention any potential hurt to anyone outside his car.

D---I believe that this choice is most confused one. 逻辑答案一定是clear的回答问题。不能再在自己的想象中猜测，增加新东西。如果我们臆断the fatalities stems from the accidents of bump of the drivers not wearing the belt with other car, 很容易choose D.  而D是很容易被驳斥的。 What if the higher fatilities come from those in which the drivers not wearing the belt with the road?

 

B: if change "of" to by, or change "not wearing the belt" to "wearing the belt".  I believe most people can choose the right answer.  The ETS is not so easy to deal with, however.   Look at B, there is "all".  The accident can happen either bump with trees, road et al, or others.   If it is the case in the former, such an answer can not weaken the conclusion---the driver just hurt himself.  But it is "all", meaning that the driver not wearing the belt was involved in an accident that hurts other, which, therefore, weakens the conclusion.  The right answer must be B.