lsat-1-4-22

flywood

22. It is illogical to infer a second and different effect from a cause which is known only by one particular effect. This is incorrect because the inferred effect must necessarily be produced by some different characteristic of the cause than is the observed effect, which already serves entirely to describe the cause.

Which one of the following arguments makes the same logical error as the one described by the author in the passage?

(A) An anonymous donor gave a thousand dollars to our historical society. I would guess that that individual also volunteers at the children’s hospital.

(B) The radioactive material caused a genetic mutation, which, in turn, caused the birth defect. Therefore, the radioactive material caused the birth defect.

(C) The tiny, unseen atom is the source of immense power. It must be its highly complex structure that produces this power.

(D) The city orchestra received more funds from the local government this year than ever before. Clearly this administration is more civic-minded than previous ones.

(E) If I heat water, which is a liquid, it evaporates. If I heat hundreds of other liquids like water, they evaporate. Therefore, if I heat any liquid like water, it will evaporate

看不懂题目,请帮我翻译一下.

robertchu

This is a very interesting question!

The "logical error ... described by the author in the passage" is:

Inferrring from "cause -> effect 1"  that "cause -> effect 2" is also true.

A is making the exact logic error: inferring from "anonymous donor's generosity  -->  giving a thousand dollars to historical society" that "anonymous donor's generosity  --> volunteering at the children’s hospital".

[此贴子已经被作者于2004-8-6 13:27:51编辑过]

mucully

这道题的逻辑错误究竟属于哪一类呢？

为什么Ａ是对的，其他的选项错在何处呢？请各位ＮＮ指点～～感激中