9－1－21

番茄炒蛋

Saunders: Everyone at last week’s neighborhood association meeting agreed that the row of abandoned and vandalized houses on Cariton Street posed a threat to the safety of our neighborhood. Moreover, no one now disputes that getting the houses torn down eliminated that threat. Some people tried to argue that it was unnecessary to demolish what they claimed were basically sound buildings, since the city had established a fund to help people in need of housing buy and rehabilitate such buildings. The overwhelming success of the demolition strategy, however, proves that the majority, who favored demolition, were right and that those who claimed that the problem could and should be solved by rehabilitating the houses were wrong.

21. Saunders’ reasoning is flawed because it

(A) relies on fear rather than on argument to persuade the neighborhood association to reject the policy advocated by Saunders’ opponents

(B) fails to establish that there is anyone who could qualify for city funds who would be interested in buying and rehabilitating the houses

(C) mistakenly equates an absence of vocal public dissent with the presence of universal public support

(D) offers no evidence that the policy advocated by Saunders’ opponents would not have succeeded if it had been given the chance

(E) does not specify the precise nature of the threat to neighborhood safety supposedly posed by the vandalized houses

我觉得答案很明显的是c
可是原文给出的是d
来个NN确认一下吧

rabbitbug

认为还是D, 没有错. 原文在最后陈词之前提到了两种不同的观点, 要拆房子和不拆,分给别人住. C却说an absence of vocal public dissent , 即"没有/缺乏反对者的意见. 有点牵强. 另外, 两种观点陈述完了, 主要看作者S这个人是怎样支持自己观点的(这正是题目的问题), S说: 很多拆房子的成功证明了"要拆房子而不要分给别人住". 如果是我, 我也会对这个结论提出反驳: "你为什么不举出不拆房子而成功解决thief问题的例子?"

番茄炒蛋

no one now disputes that getting the houses torn down eliminated that threat.
however, proves that the majority, who favored demolition, were right

我就从这两句推出选c的，好像没错啊

rabbitbug

问题是让你找出作者的论证错误,不是让你推出什么结论. right?

番茄炒蛋

是啊，他的错误就是在于开会的时候没有反对，他就当作大家全部都赞同他的看法了
不反对和赞同是两个不同的概念啊

rabbitbug

??? 你怎么会理解成S这个人在开会的时候提出的这个问题呢? 从哪里看出S在开会呀? Everyone at last week’s neighborhood association meeting agreed that the row of abandoned and vandalized houses on Cariton Street posed a threat to the safety of our neighborhood. Moreover, no one now disputes that getting the houses torn down eliminated that threat.(这里是他陈述的要拆房子的观点) Some people tried to argue that it was unnecessary to demolish what they claimed were basically sound buildings, since the city had established a fund to help people in need of housing buy and rehabilitate such buildings.(这里是S陈述的不要拆房子的观点) The overwhelming success of the demolition strategy, however, proves that the majority, who favored demolition, were right and that those who claimed that the problem could and should be solved by rehabilitating the houses were wrong. (这个才是S自己的观点: 注意这里的however, 联系阅读的原则, however是提出自己的观点. 就在最后这里, 才看出S出问题了: 只从拆房子的success得出结论: 应该拆房子!)

番茄炒蛋

小兔啊，我们到底是谁把题意给弄错了呢
再来个兄弟给做的公正，呵呵，我死也瞑目了

susan7375

以下是引用番茄炒蛋在2003-12-8 15:27:00的发言：
no one now disputes that getting the houses torn down eliminated that threat.
however, proves that the majority, who favored demolition, were right

我就从这两句推出选c的，好像没错啊

共有两种观点：demolish房子已防贼，not demolish。
而“no one now disputes that getting the houses torn down eliminated that threat.” 这里的“getting the houses torn down eliminated that threat.” ”只是一个subconclusion。所以不能说反对意见是absenct

番茄炒蛋

咳，你们没有看清楚我的意思
原文是不是由no one now disputes that getting the houses torn down eliminated that threat. 得出 The overwhelming success of the demolition strategy, however, proves that the majority, who favored demolition, were right
我觉得这个就是逻辑中的错误，以前我也碰到过，只不过这题的答案我觉得是错的

mariezhu

答案应该是D，文中有两种方案，一种人赞成拆了，一种赞成修复，最终结论是拆了取得了成功就证明拆了的更有理些，这种推理明显是错误的。也许修复了也能取得成功，被证明是个成功的方案。而这正是D要说得。