B: a company will erode its power if it does not act responsibly. The history of human institution can prove that.
P: the society will reduce the power of companies, if it thinks they are not responsible.
C: A company want to retain its power must be responsible.
Pre: A company actually is very responsible, but it still lose its power./ There is another reason why the company lose its power./ The analogy between companies and human institutions is not proper.
A. This choice actually supports the argument because it prove that the analogy between human institutions and companies is reasonable.
B. Contender. If a company is not responsible but still gain power, then the conclusion may be weakened.
C. “Some companies” cannot stand for “all” companies, so this is an irrelevant comparison.
E. I think this choice is right. Because if a company is responsible but still lose its power, then the conclusion may be weakened.
1.没有注意一个是“wish to retain its power”,另外一个是”retain power”
2.没有发现这里是一个mistaken reversal of the conclusion.
conclusion:wish to retain power→ responsibility
那么reverse一下就是:responsibility→ wish to retain power(假设这里忽略wish的问题)
也就是说“负责”就足以带来“retain power”的结果,选项E中说,负责不足以带来保持实力,等于是weaken了reverse之后的argument,然而weaken mistaken reversal of the conclusion是不能起到weaken原来的argument的作用的。所以错
The Rules of Reversibility
Certain Formal Logic relationships have a natural “reversibility.” Reversibility in the context of Formal Logic means that the relationship between the two variables has exactly the same meaning regardless of which “side” of the relationship is the starting point of your analysis. Statements that are non-reversible have a single “direction,” that is, the relationship between the two variables is not the same.
First, let us examine a relationship that is not reversible:
Starting from the A side, we know that every single A is a B. If we start at B, does the relationship reverse? That is, is every single B an A? No—that would be a Mistaken Reversal. From B’s side, we do not know if every B is an A. Instead, we only know that some B’s are A’s (this inherent inference will be discussed in greater detail in the Inherent versus Additive Inferences section). Thus, the arrow between A and B in the diagram above has a direction: the “all” travels only from A to B and it does not additionally travel from B to A. The relationship is therefore not reversible.
Now, let us examine a reversible relationship. “Some” is a classic example of a reversible statement.
Consider the following example:
Starting from A yields, “Some A’s are B’s” (A some B). Starting from B yields “Some B’s are A’s” (B some A). Because of the nature of “some,” these two statements are functionally identical (if some A’s are B’s, by definition some B’s must also be A’s; alternatively, if some A’s are B’s, then somewhere in the world there is an AB pair, and thus somewhere a B is with an A and we can conclude some B’s are A’s).
Reversible statements are easily identifiable because the relationship symbol is symmetrical and does not include an arrow pointing in a single direction. Non-reversible terms have arrow that point in just one direction.
Reversible Relationships Non-reversible Relationships
The beauty of reversible terms is that you can analyze the relationship from either “side” and still arrive at the same conclusion.
1.B:USA solar- power manufacturers may lose their market share in the European market because European manufacturers are more competitive in Europe
P: USA manufactures succeed in initiate the demand of American
C: They can maintain significant production level
Pre: There is a true analogy between European manufactures and USA ones
2.B: The higher the level of certain vitamins and minerals in the bloodstream, the better a person's lung function
P: Smokers should increase their intake of foods that are rich in vitamins and minerals.
C: The lung function of them will improve.
Pre: The vitamins and minerals taken in by smokers cannot increase the level of vitamins and minerals in the “bloodstream”!
3.B: One observation shows that S comet broken into fragments before entering J. Astronomers studied these fragments.
P: Sulfur would have seeped into the outer atmosphere if comet fragments had penetrated this cloud layer
C: Some of the fragments have not been burned up when they passed through J’s atmosphere.
Pre: statement to support the conclusion / Conclusion
4.B: Most of the world's supply of uranium currently comes from mines.
P: Price of extracting from seawater> fetching on the world market
C: obtaining uranium from seawater is unlikely to be commercially viable →cost of extracting uranium from seawater reduce
Pre: 如果没有reduce,seawater的这种方法是是否仍然viable?
错误原因分析:选项C讨论的是一个现实问题,和能否weaken作者的argument是没有关系的,选项C并不是作者的premise。而选项A中讨论的问题就和前提有关,因为如果陆地上的uranium没有了,人们就不得不转向seawater,在这种情况下,不论挖掘seawater的cost是否会下降,都会使它有商业价值
|