解释不清：og-102

snowjing

up!

snowjing

还是求解这题的weaken类型? 是不是他因削弱?

v22

bushi

bobbymkk

能不能这样理解:题说人们去掉认为会引起过敏的那些食物,但其实这些人们认为的食物不一定找得对,因为好多食物的过敏反应要几天后才出现,人们分不清哪个食物是真正的罪魁祸首,所以不能因为去掉那些食物结果偏头痛没治好就说还有其他因素

oceanalma

觉得og给的解释真的是反对前提阿，不过好像真的记得，削弱题目，只能弱结论，或者他因解释，不能反对前提阿？

dancerme814

以下是引用bobbymkk在2005-8-26 2:14:00的发言：

能不能这样理解:题说人们去掉认为会引起过敏的那些食物,但其实这些人们认为的食物不一定找得对,因为好多食物的过敏反应要几天后才出现,人们分不清哪个食物是真正的罪魁祸首,所以不能因为去掉那些食物结果偏头痛没治好就说还有其他因素

有道理  mm好样的

风过疏竹

我选择的是C，看了解释后还是有点糊涂

因为我觉得(A) Many common foods elicit an allergic response only after several days, making it very difficult to observe links between specific foods patients eat and headaches they develop.

是说食物导致过敏的现象会延期，很难说是因为食物的原因导致头疼还是其他的原因。那也就是说可能是食物，也可能是其他原因。

而C

(C) Many patients report that the foods that cause them migraine headaches are among the foods that they most enjoy eating.已经明确的说了是食物导致的头疼。所以C应该是WEAKEN的原因呀。他直接否定了结论——有其他的原因导致片头疼呀

谢谢指教

风过疏竹

up

mko

是不是可以这么理解:

因为相信有些食物是导致头痛的根源,所以停止这些食物,但是停止后并没有消除头痛现象,所以一定有别的原因.

削弱: 根本没有哪些食物导致头痛的有力证据.因为普通食物都可能引起头痛,并在几天后发作,无法判断到底是什么食物引起了头痛.

看一下OG-78. A group of children of
various ages was read stories in which people caused harm, some of those people
doing so intentionally, and some accidentally. When asked about appropriate
punishments for those who had caused harm, the younger children, unlike the
older ones, assigned punishments that did not vary according to whether the
harm was done intentionally or accidentally. Younger children, then, do not
regard people’s intentions as relevant to punishment.

Which of the following, if true, would most
seriously weaken the conclusion above?

(A) In interpreting these stories, the listeners
had to draw on a relatively mature sense of human psychology in order to tell
whether harm was produced intentionally or accidentally.

OG-78题,小孩知道故意与非故意,小孩只是不用这个条件作为惩罚的尺度.

削弱, 小孩根本不能分辨故意与非故意,所以是否用这个条件来作为惩罚尺度根本不适用.

这些题是否都是前提削弱呢?

seraphcynic

THANKS