请教这道逻辑题，多谢

mike1999

It is illogical to infer a second and different effect from a cause which is known only by one particular effect. This is incorrect because the inferred effect must necessarily be produced by some different characteristic of the cause than is the observed effect, which already serves entirely to describe the cause.

Which one of the following arguments makes the same logical error as the one described by the author in the passage

我不是很清楚这段话的含义，请前辈们指教，上帝会祝福你们的！多谢。

cranberry

从一个被认为只会产生一个特别的效果的原因中推导出第二个且不同的效果是不合逻辑的。它的不正确在于推导出的效果一定是来自于原因中与已知效果不同的特性，而已知的效果已经可以完全的表述这个原因了。

mike1999

那它的逻辑错误在哪里呢？

cranberry

错误在于，一个原因导致某一个确定的效果，说明原因是效果的充分条件，效果是原因的必要条件。而题目认为一个原因只能推出一个效果，实际是把必要条件混同于充分条件了。比如：偶吃饱了，所以就不吃了。但不能说，偶不吃，一定是因为吃饱了。

mike1999

有点懂了，谢了

renprince

尽量贴原题吧