求助一道GWD，纠结C,E

polucn

In the past, most children who went sledding in the winter snow in Verland used wooden sleds with runners and steering bars.  Ten years ago, smooth plastic sleds became popular; they go faster than wooden sleds but are harder to steer and slow.  The concern that plastic sleds are more dangerous is clearly borne out by the fact that the number of children injured while sledding was much higher last winter than it was ten years ago.

Which of the following, if true in Verland, most seriously undermines the force of the evidence cited?

	A few children still use traditional wooden sleds.
	Very few children wear any kind of protective gear, such as helmets, while sledding.
	Plastic sleds can be used in a much wider variety of snow conditions than wooden sleds can.
	Most sledding injuries occur when a sled collides with a tree, a rock, or, another sled.
	Because the traditional wooden sled can carry more than one rider, an accident involving a wooden sled can result in several children being injured.

答案是C，但怎么看都觉得E更相关啊……

jodiewang

why not B?

javafirst

因为B没有比较过去和现在，即：因为不知道过去带不带防护用具，如果过去到现在一直不带的，so what?所以B是无关选项。C是对的，比方说，本来有些地方不敢去滑雪，但是有了这塑料的家伙，适应性广了，就敢去了，结果就挂了。其实，C是举出了一个他因，也就是过去和现在不同的边界条件：滑雪的区域变化了，而认为这个变化就是原因。这样就自然否定了用具本身是危险的这个命题。这个逻辑可以类比为鸦片本身是否是危险的？其实危险的不是鸦片，而是对于鸦片的滥用而已。

polucn

因为B没有比较过去和现在，即：因为不知道过去带不带防护用具，如果过去到现在一直不带的，so what?所以B是无关选项。C是对的，比方说，本来有些地方不敢去滑雪，但是有了这塑料的家伙，适应性广了，就敢去了，结果就挂了。其实，C是举出了一个他因，也就是过去和现在不同的边界条件：滑雪的区域变化了，而认为这个变化就是原因。这样就自然否定了用具本身是危险的这个命题。这个逻辑可以类比为鸦片本身是否是危险的？其实危险的不是鸦片，而是对于鸦片的滥用而已。

照楼上的说法，那是因为“应用范围广”所以削弱了“受伤多”导致塑料的东西不能用，而并不是否定了“不能用”这个结论。

那么E可以说明“受伤多”并不是塑料的玩意儿造成的，是因为过去现在木头的东西都是可以带这么多小孩，所以这个E也是无关的了。对不？

zhaozihan

顶