求一道逻辑考题！！！

s-dUSA

Bensontuo 发表于 2019-7-23 17:12
考必要假設,

If " 原文的支持（充分條件發生）保證了原文的結論 （必要條件的發生）, then ( 哪個必要假 ...

这个问题当年是我问的，之前的号忘了密码邮箱，直接新注册了一个。

看下上面Sdcar2010的解释，他那个准确。

前提：专家查明去年八月事故非人为，因此从去年八月起开始设置更严苛的机械检查；
结论：该等更严苛机械检查导致从去年起机械报告的问题增加50%。

假设：该等增加非因其他原因（比如机械问题从去年八月起确实上升了50%），而仅仅是因为检查更严苛导致。

我现在看看这个题目，其实当年自己想法没错，第一句话（专家查明去年八月事故非人为）对于做对这道题目，确实没啥用，不过出题人想用第一句话引出这个话题，所以加了，有点尬。

Bensontuo

s-dUSA 发表于 2019-7-25 14:59
这个问题当年是我问的，之前的号忘了密码邮箱，直接新注册了一个。

看下上面Sdcar2010的解释，他那个准确 ...

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.

s-dUSA

Bensontuo 发表于 2019-7-25 22:11
I agree on the point that your reasoning based on the argument of treating the last sentence as th ...

如果把 “从去年八月起开始设置更严苛的机械检查（前提1），该等更严苛机械检查导致从去年起机械报告的问题增加50%（前提2）”作为前提，把”专家认为去年八月事故非人为" 作为结论的话，C项是从前提1推到前提2之间起到”假设“（必要条件）作用，个人感觉C项不构成前提2 与结论之间的必要条件。
这么理解也没有问题，不影响做对这道题目；因为我感觉这道题目其实之考察了”前提1“和”前提2“之间的假设。