【每日逻辑链练习贴】【逻辑1-12】

kid381

1-12
56 48’’
Background info: Exercise does not cause heart attack; the sudden surge in frequency of exercises may higher the possibility of heart attack.
Conclusion: the new health program may induce a surge in heart attack.
Assumption: employees suddenly increase their exercise frequencies in the new program.
57 55’’
Fact1: two companies announced quite similar new goods in almost the same time.
Fact2: the two companies claimed that they developed their own product independently.
Fact3: 1. Too fundamental to be mere coincidence. 2. Not only look alike but also work alike.
Conclusion: at least one company lied.
58 45’’
Fact1: anthropologist one medical power contained toxin T.
Fact2 (anti Fact1): she had a test, but only negating her prior conclusion, then she withhold the results of this test.
Fact3: a chemist charged the anthropologist cheated.
Fact4: anthropologist argued that the test is invalid.
Support chemist: chemist could not reproduce the ideal results while copying all the procedures and steps in anthropologist’s test.
59 20’’
Fact: every year new reports provide seemingly contradicted reports about the effects of some food such as coffee.
Evidence: one year, good; one year, bad.
Conclusion: experts are useless.
Weaken: the seeming ambivalent results allow us to know the effects of coffee more accurately and precisely.
60 75’’
Fact: 最近对肉检查更勤了,检查出chicken包含细菌的数量减少了50%。
Argument1: 检查得越勤，则人们得肠道病的概率越低。
Argument2: 买excel meats的顾客会更安全，因为excel meats的产品在各种检查中一直在进步。
Points:
1.攻击argument1因果关系问题。检查得勤不是人们得病的直接原因。而是卫生情况的改善。
2.攻击argument1, insuffcient sample, chicken中的bacteria减少了不等于其它肉类也会减少。
3.攻击argument2, 进步不等于安全，一直进步可能是因为excel meats原来特别差。

flonacui

1
P sudden increase in excersise is the cause of the heart attack
C there will be an increasing risk among the employees in the company due to the new health program.
assumption: The employees in the company do not like exercise before; The exercises in the health program are fiece enough to cause the heart attack
2
BG 2 companies have released now products that function and shape in the same way. But the 2 companies said that their employees worked independently.
P It is too fundamenta to be the conincident.
C The similarity between the newly released products from the two companies could not be conincidental.
3
4
BG Every year, new reports concerning the health risks posed by certain substances.
P some researchers said that coffee is bad to people's health, in the next year, however, some researchers said that the coffee is good.
C The researchers are useless for guiding one's decision on one's health.
flaw: researchers published controversial report on one substance does not mean that they are useless in guiding people's health.

5 AA
many false cause and effect relationships.

xiqiong

1)↑exercise---->(can）heart attack.  ∴ 员工会↑heart attack
assumption:
员工会exercise? bingo！不过最好卡紧： sudden increase


2)..., 两个公司都说各自研发，... HOWEVER.....
——>结论：它们不是各自研发的（有这个点的都OK）

3）A科学家发现了T.但说不代表什么，因为在酸性环境下得出的。
支持反对者： 任何发现能有T的都要曝光或者有害什么的。反正就是说一定要曝光，管你有没有什么特殊情况。
支持科学家：实际用药都不在酸性下。反正就是扯到研究≠实际。 或者上面的反面。

好吧~题目木有看懂，其实是，科学家假设药粉有T，但检验发现成阴性（没有），但拒绝报道。说实验在酸性条件下做的。
支持科学家： 酸性失真。

4）今年说有害，明年说有益处。科学家没用。
FLAW： have some benefits 和 have some risks 不矛盾啊。
就算整体上有害，也可以有有益的一部分吧

5）反驳：
1）stomach and intestinal infections 不全是由meat-processing 掌控的。
2）降得也许够多了，再监管木有用了。
3）Excel Meats不一定最安全，它降得多也许代表它原来的问题大！

Yvette19

1. 38s
外科医生说，运动本身并不直接导致心脏病，突然的运动才是心脏病的诱因。
任何身体状况的人，如果突然增加运动强度，都容易导致心脏病。
因此，这家公司给员工提供新的健身项目有可能导致心脏病的发生。（回头再看一眼题目，原来是new health program..不是健身啊晕 我总是想太多）

Assumption: 这公司的员工原来都不运动的。（直接想跳了一步。。）

2.  看了两遍 原谅我今天极度疲倦的状态。。。脑子不进东西 >.<
两家公司前后生产了惊人相似的产品，尽管他们都称这只是巧合。
但这不应该仅仅是巧合：长得像，功能像，练操作部件都一样。

3.一位人类学家知道某药物含有T毒物，但是她检验出来了T呈阴性但是木有上报。化学家指责她欺诈。但是人类学家说这个实验结果无效因为是在酸性环境下的结果。

weaken, T呈阴性是对人体有极大伤害的。
strengthen, 这种药只在碱性环境下服用？

4. 30s
BG: 每年都会有关于某种物质对健康影响的报告，比如糖啊咖啡啊。今年砖家说咖啡有害健康，明年又扯有啥有益物质。。。
Conclusion: 所以没必要听砖家瞎掰。

flaw: 砖家所谓有利有害并不指示事物本身（如咖啡），而是针对里面的某些成分。就是有些方面有利，有些方面有弊嘛很正常。

大三准备留学

Yvette19 发表于 2013-8-14 05:45
1. 38s
外科医生说，运动本身并不直接导致心脏病，突然的运动才是心脏病的诱因。
任何身体状况的人，如果突 ...

坚持就是胜利！！加油

大三准备留学

Yvette19 发表于 2013-8-14 05:45
1. 38s
外科医生说，运动本身并不直接导致心脏病，突然的运动才是心脏病的诱因。
任何身体状况的人，如果突 ...

And I really miss you darling~

Yvette19

大三准备留学 发表于 2013-8-14 10:21
And I really miss you darling~

单看头像人家会以为我精神分裂的==+

miss u too anyway

m1nt

1. 35’
Premise: sudden increase in exercise regimen=increased risk of heart attack
Conclusion: new health program – increase risk of heart attack
Assumption: 填gap: new health program – increase in exercise regimen

2. 35’
Premise: Both have similar unique design, and allow same adjustment
Counter-Conclusion: Similarities are coincidental, designers independently reached the same solution
Conclusion: The similarities cannot be a coincide

3. 45’
Premise: A’s test presence of toxin T was negative, A didn’t report it
A argued results were invalid because the power had inadvertently been test in acidic solution
Conclusion: the anthropologist with fraud
Support: Acidic solution doesn’t change T

4. 19’
Premise: one year coffee is dangerous the next year coffee has benefit
Conclusion: experts are useless for guiding one’s decisions about one’s health
Flaw：有些方面有好处有些方面不好？

5. 30‘
Premise: more inspections- less bacterias
Conclusion: should have more inspections- will have only half incidence
E meats safe cuz E has more improvement in report
Weaken: 1 now more inspections doesn’t mean the same in the future
       2 less bacterias doesn’t mean only have incidence
       3 E is the worst so more improvement

大三准备留学

Yvette19 发表于 2013-8-15 05:52
单看头像人家会以为我精神分裂的==+

miss u too anyway

haha  whatever....Im here waiting you at boston

jenniferlyy125

1. 32’
P: if the exercises are suddenly increased, the probability of heart attack will increase
C: the new health program will increase the heart attack probability
Assume: the new health program will suddenly increase exercises
【因果】突然增加运动量会增加心脏病可能。所以新的健康项目会增加心脏病可能。填补gap。

2. P: O released a new product, three days later E released a similar product
P: the occurrence is coincidental, however, there are too fundamental to be mere coincidence
问main point, 就是conclusion of the argument, 就是however后面那一句。However the two products are too fundamental to be coincidence.

3. 59’
P：a medicine contains T, test result is negative
C1: anthropologist is incorrect
C2: anthropologist: since the test is in acidic solution, the results is invalid
【二人对话】人类学家认为药物里面有T，因为实验结果是负性。但是实验的溶液是酸性的，所以结果不可行。化学家认为：人类学家的说法关于负性得出药物有T的说法错误。
1.        加强化学家。就是药物有T 因为负性是错误的。直接加强。The test result of negative might be interfere with other reasons, which cannot guarantee the presence of T.
2.        加强人类学家。就是有T的说法是错误的。直接加强。Acidic solution will make the results unbelievable. The acidic solution cannot guarantee the negative means presence of T.

4. 28’
P: one year an article claimed that coffee is dangerous to health
P: the next year another article says that coffee is beneficial to health
C: the contradictory opinions show that experts are useless for guiding decisions about health
【归纳】一个文章说咖啡不好，另一个文章说咖啡好。所以专家的意见是没有用的。例子到结论不完全归纳的典型。只有两个文章不足以说明专家的意见是没有用的。 不知道文章出处，正确性，等因素，无法得出归纳结论。
Only two articles are not representative of the general validity of opinions of experts