关于og-14和og-9的mad想法

madtears

大家帮忙看看，

Opponents of laws that require automobile drivers and passengers to wear seat belts argue that in a free society people have the right to take risks as long as the people do not harm other as a result of taking the risks .As a result ,they conclude that it should be each person's decision whether or not to wear a seat belt .
which of the following ,if true ,nost seriously weakens the conclusion drawn above ?
A   many new cars are built with seat belts that automatically fasten when someone sits in the front seat .
B   automobile insurance rates for all automobile owners are higher because of the need ot pay for the increased injuries of deaths of people not wearing seat belts .
C   passagers in airplanes are required to wear seat belts during takeoffs and landings .
D   the rate of automobile fatalities in states that do not have mandatory seat belt laws os greater than the rate of fatalities in states that do have such laws
E   in autonobile accidents ,a great number of passengers who do not wear seat belts are injured that are passengers who do wear seat belts .

我觉得有点怪啊。我选的是c,为什么呢，大家看看og9.就是很明显的举反例阿，坐飞机不绑安全带只会伤害自己。如果b选项中的people改为passagers我会选的，people在这里我认为就是automobile owner.

以下乃题外话，纯当笑话。保险里面讲究的是受益人对标的有可保利益，有这种险种吗？？虽然说是if true,但是如果中国早点引进的话，张玉宁和曲玉恒就不用打官司了。。。。

madtears

难道我的问题太奇怪了？为什么没人回答呢？

philikittist

不管是什么险，不系安全带的人比系的人死亡风险高，因为有人不系安全带，保险公司对所有保险人都提高了费率，这样，不系的人就是侵害了系的人的利益。

C说飞机的事，跟本题无关，本题是说汽车。

cocoabean

难道我的问题太奇怪了？为什么没人回答呢？

yes, 何止是奇怪! ^_^

OG9 bat一题是举Raccoons and owls 反例,反对论据, 反对原因

而OG14中c 并没有反对 the people do not harm other as a result of taking the risks 该原因.与原因不沾边

C cites a requirement analogous to the one at issue, but its existence alone does

not bear on the legitimacy of the one at issue.     无关选项

魚子醬秋天

Weaken 的 object应是下面这句话 :

in a free society people have the right to take risks as long as the people do not harm other as a result of taking   the risks  

( C) 的答案不大好  不管举的例子是啥 航空业也好 / 其它产业也霸 都有点 overgeneralization 的味道

( D )简单的说 就是 ->那些不守规矩的人搞得大家都要一起付出代价à 酱子 这些人的行为 还可以自由自在的不受规范吗 ?

( D) 用来weaken 真是在好也不过啦

…….真正的自由是以不妨碍他人的自由为自由………………………..  

homosexual

以下是引用cocoabean在2004-4-21 8:48:00的发言：

难道我的问题太奇怪了？为什么没人回答呢？

yes, 何止是奇怪! ^_^

OG9 bat一题是举Raccoons and owls 反例,反对论据, 反对原因

而OG14中c 并没有反对 the people do not harm other as a result of taking the risks 该原因.与原因不沾边

C cites a requirement analogous to the one at issue, but its existence alone does

not bear on the legitimacy of the one at issue.     无关选项

OG9 bat一题是举Raccoons and owls 反例,反对论据, 反对原因

这里应该不是反对原因，要反对的是原因的唯一性--solely,确切地说是他因削弱.

tangjinrangmat

作者的前提是不系安全带不会伤害别人，B是断桥，指出这种行为伤害了别人

wldragon6

文中提到as long as the people do not harm other，只要找个伤害别人的答案即可削弱，可正确答案B中提到的injuries or deaths of people not wearing seat belts的people的概念有点模糊，不知道是指driver呢还是非driver的其他人，但其他选项似乎比B更不妥，所以偶只好选B了。

junwang286

个人认为OG-9是这样的, 保险公司提高了所有汽车拥有者所需交的保险费,理由是因为在所有汽车拥有者中存在着不系安全带的人车祸率很高的缘故.   保险公司提高所有汽车拥有者所要交的保险费的做法是将风险平摊开来.  所以,对于那些用安全带的人来说,他们因不用安全带的人而多交了保险费.  所以,他们的利益是受到侵犯的.

我爱欧洲

OG-9中的答案是用反例削弱，B—>A',相同的条件造成了相反的结果.

OG-14的C只是另一个例子，而不是反例。WEAKEN的OBJECT应该是the people do not harm other as a result of taking the risks 。所以应该是不带安全带的人do harm other as a result of taking the risks