SDCAR2010【逻辑入门】（四）Role (Boldface)

sa0314

Mark一下！               

Chane2405

Hi~
What does evidence means in BF questions.
For Q3, what is the reason that the first part is not an evidence.
Thanks

我爱吃香菜

感谢分享！               

lihua1998

Mark一下！               

乔伊斯羊

Mark一下！               

越记越多

qiushuan 发表于 2011-7-3 17:17
"The percentage of children having psychological problems is higher among children of Sea Turtle  ...

同意！               

ChristieeeeeW

du wan da ka

ddhhddd

抱歉挖坟～不知道大神还在不在，我想问一下，我看各种题型的做题策略都不一样，那是不是意味着要先看题干，再去看上面的argument呢～谢谢！

jennyqu_jy

1. Modern navigation systems, which are found in most of today's commercial aircraft, are made with low-power circuitry, which is more susceptible to interference than the vacuum-tube circuitry found in older planes. During landing, navigation systems receive radio signals from the airport to guide the plane to the runway.
Recently, one plane with low-power circuitry veered off course during landing, its dials dimming, when a passenger turned on a laptop computer. Clearly, modern aircraft navigation systems are being put at risk by the electronic devices that passengers carry on board, such as cassette players and laptop computers.

The two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?

(A) The first is a principle that the argument relies on and the second is a conclusion that can be drawn from the first.
(B) The first is a fact that argument relies on and the second is a conclusion that must be drawn from this argument.
(C) The first acknowledges a consideration that supports that main position; the second is that conclusion.
(D) The first is an evidence that supports the conclusion, the second is that conclusion.
(E) The first is a principle that is necessary for this argument, the second is a conclusion that could be drawn from this argument.

NN, for this question, Why is D out in the game? Also, in my opinion, the 1st BF shouldn't be a consideration. I believe 1st BF is more of a fact/evidence? Principle seems also an intense category for this kinda statement....

Kindly waiting for your response. Merci!

Balizaa

牛牛在吗，有没有人告诉我，第七题为什么不选B ? 这一题的main conclusion不是The breaking of a law does not justify incarceration吗？

7) Legal theorist: It is unreasonable to incarcerate anyone for any other reason than that he or she is a serious threat to the property or lives of other people. The breaking of a law does not justify incarceration, for lawbreaking proceeds either from ignorance of the law or of the effects of one’s actions, or from the free choice of the lawbreaker. Obviously mere ignorance cannot justify incarcerating a lawbreaker, and even free choice on the part of the lawbreaker fails to justify incarceration, for free choice proceeds from the desires of an agent, and the desires of an agent are products of genetics and environmental conditioning, neither of which is controlled by the agent

The claim in the first sentence of the passage plays which one of the following roles in the argument