4月份考试的同学们，请大家帮忙回忆一道逻辑狗！求助啊！！

秋晨小仔

楼主不才，只记得自己做过那道题，却忘了出处。。想给大家提供点原题，也想找找这道题错误的原因，无奈翻遍自己手头的电子资料都米有找到，有没有同学回忆的再详细一点。。。帮帮忙哇。。。





题目里有爱因斯坦，牛顿啥的，说他们成名都是因为有对后世影响深远的发现or理论成就。然后又扯到现在的科学家了，说现在的科学家怎么怎么着了，然后结论。。。貌似还有一个叫P什么的人出现过！大家帮忙回忆回忆吧ToT


帮帮忙啊ＨＥＬＰ！！！

秋晨小仔

自己顶顶。。。求解啊。。。

秋晨小仔

5555 XDJM们帮帮忙啊。。。楼主强迫症又犯了。。。

秋晨小仔

up  up up

秋晨小仔

5555555求解啊。。。。是不是大家考完都注销了ToT

Terryy

up

wuye1990

GWD-6-Q16:
Historian:Newton
developed mathematical concepts and techniques that are fundamental to modern calculus.Leibniz developed closely analogous concepts and techniques.It hastraditionally been thoughtthat these discoveries were independent.Researchers have,however,recently discovered notes of Leibniz’ that discuss one ofNewton’s books on mathematics.Several scholars have argued that since the book includes a presentation ofNewton’s calculus concepts and techniques, and sincethe notes were written before Leibniz’ own development of calculus concepts and techniques,it is virtually certainthat the traditional view is false.Amore cautious conclusionthan this is called for,however.Leibniz’ notes are limited to early sections ofNewton’s book, sections that precede the ones in whichNewton’s calculus concepts and techniques are presented.




In the historian’s reasoning, the two boldfaced portions play which of the following roles?

1. The first provides evidence in support of the overall position that the historian defends; the second is evidence that has been used to support an opposing position.
   
   
2. The first provides evidence in support of the overall position that the historian defends; the second is that position.
   
   
3. The first provides evidence in support of an intermediate conclusion that is drawn to provide support for the overall position that the historian defends; the second provides evidence against that intermediate conclusion.
   
   
4. The first is evidence that has been used to support a conclusion that the historian criticizes; the second is evidence offered in support of the historian’s own position.
   
   
5. The first is evidence that has been used to support a conclusion that the historian criticizes; the second is further information that substantiates that evidence.
   
   
   
   原文有三个观点，a.传统的观点:牛顿和莱布尼兹的研究是各自独立得出的。b.一些学者的观点:莱布尼兹是受牛顿影响。因为莱布尼兹在得出自己的研究前，参考过牛顿的数学书。c.作者的观点:作者反对观点b,也就是说支持观点a,因为莱布尼兹只参考了牛顿书的前面的章节，而牛顿的理论是在后面的章节才出现。
   
   
   
   再看答案，应该很清楚是D.错误在于没搞懂这几个观点的关系。A more cautious conclusion肯定是把上面的观点反对掉了，而不是继承。我误以为只有两个观点。
   
   
   

秋晨小仔

GWD-6-Q16:
Historian:Newton
developed mathematical concepts and techniques that are fundamental to modern calculus.Leibniz developed closely analogous concepts and techniques.It hastraditionally been thoughtthat these discoveries were independent.Researchers have,however,recently discovered notes of Leibniz’ that discuss one ofNewton’s books on mathematics.Several scholars have argued that since the book includes a presentation ofNewton’s calculus concepts and techniques, and sincethe notes were written before Leibniz’ own development of calculus concepts and techniques,it is virtually certainthat the traditional view is false.Amore cautious conclusionthan this is called for,however.Leibniz’ notes are limited to early sections ofNewton’s book, sections that precede the ones in whichNewton’s calculus concepts and techniques are presented.




In the historian’s reasoning, the two boldfaced portions play which of the following roles?

The first provides evidence in support of the overall position that the historian defends; the second is evidence that has been used to support an opposing position.

The first provides evidence in support of the overall position that the historian defends; the second is that position.

The first provides evidence in support of an intermediate conclusion that is drawn to provide support for the overall position that the historian defends; the second provides evidence against that intermediate conclusion.

The first is evidence that has been used to support a conclusion that the historian criticizes; the second is evidence offered in support of the historian’s own position.

The first is evidence that has been used to support a conclusion that the historian criticizes; the second is further information that substantiates that evidence.



原文有三个观点，a.传统的观点:牛顿和莱布尼兹的研究是各自独立得出的。b.一些学者的观点:莱布尼兹是受牛顿影响。因为莱布尼兹在得出自己的研究前，参考过牛顿的数学书。c.作者的观点:作者反对观点b,也就是说支持观点a,因为莱布尼兹只参考了牛顿书的前面的章节，而牛顿的理论是在后面的章节才出现。



再看答案，应该很清楚是D.错误在于没搞懂这几个观点的关系。A more cautious conclusion肯定是把上面的观点反对掉了，而不是继承。我误以为只有两个观点。

-- by 会员 wuye1990 (2012/4/13 14:37:43)

谢谢亲。。。不过不是这道题。。。ToT继续顶。。。

秋晨小仔

再顶顶。。。求考古大神现身。。。

RainieLove

LZ人真好呀！！都考完了还帮我们求狗！！！感谢呀！！！~~~~