- UID
- 1390765
- 在线时间
- 小时
- 注册时间
- 2019-3-5
- 最后登录
- 1970-1-1
- 主题
- 帖子
- 性别
- 保密
|
I agree on the point that your reasoning based on the argument of treating the last sentence as the conclusion is flawless, and I also want to appreciate your attention on my post.
Thank you for also participating in the discussion of this old thread.
Please allow me explain the reason why I treat the first sentence as the main conclusion.
1. I believe that what the argument really be structured is by having the supports of increased samples of one factor, due to the happening of the scenario, to imply the fact that the factor with increased samples must be sufficient enough to exclude " any " possibilities of human errors.
If that's the case, in my humble opinion, as spotting the correct answer of question type of necessary assumption based on the original argument offered, I would like to see if there is answer being negated could manifested the opposite concept of " if it wont be sufficient enough to exclude " any possibilities of human errors ", the increased samples of the factor must not increased as the figure told " which is to say, the increased samples are actually not " account for " all of the increased samples.
If that's the case, they there must be minor possibilities that there are the other factors behind the scenarios and one of them " might be " human errors.
If one of them " might be " human errors, then the conclusions of excluding " human errors " from investigator must be not airtight. -> Refute the conclusion.
Please alway let me know if there is any point that I missed or fail to recognize. Highly appreciate your support.
|
|