ChaseDream
搜索
返回列表 发新帖
查看: 1616|回复: 3
打印 上一主题 下一主题

大全-TestD-15 讨论中没有

[复制链接]
楼主
发表于 2008-6-27 20:10:00 | 只看该作者

大全-TestD-15 讨论中没有

Susan: Those who oppose experimentation on animals do not properly value the preservation of human life. Although animal suffering is unfortunate, it is justifiable if it can lead to cures for human ailments.

Melvin: But much animal experimentation involves testing of ordinary consumer products such as soaps, dyes, and cosmetics.

Susan: These experiments are justifiable on the same grounds, since cleanliness, convenience, and beauty are worthwhile human values deserving of support.

Which of the following is the best statement of the logical flaw in Susan’s argument?

(A) Her claim that animal experimentation is justifiable if it supports human values contradicts her claim that such experimentation is justifiable only if it leads to cures for human ailments.

(B) She places a higher value on human cleanliness, convenience, and beauty than she does on the preservation of animal life.

(C) She uses the word “value” in two different senses.

(D) She assumes that all ordinary consumer products aid in the preservation of human life.E

(E) She fails to show how mere support for human values actually preserves human lives.

 

是不是我真的太弱了,别人都没错过。前4个选项是不对,但E什么意思呀,也不明白。欢迎大家讨论

沙发
 楼主| 发表于 2008-7-2 16:22:00 | 只看该作者
up,不要沉了
板凳
发表于 2008-7-3 09:54:00 | 只看该作者

我的想法:

Susan的中心论点是:Those who oppose experimentation on animals do not properly value the preservation of human life.

而她辩驳Melvin时说即使用动物做实验是为了 human cleanliness, convenience, and beauty 也是合情合理,因为这些属于worthwhile human values

E说Susan没有指出support worthwhile human values 是否属于 preserves human lives

不知道说清楚了没

地板
 楼主| 发表于 2008-7-3 11:02:00 | 只看该作者
明白了!谢谢!
您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 立即注册

Mark一下! 看一下! 顶楼主! 感谢分享! 快速回复:

手机版|ChaseDream|GMT+8, 2025-2-22 07:44
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号

ChaseDream 论坛

© 2003-2025 ChaseDream.com. All Rights Reserved.

返回顶部