以下是引用wangyu73cn在2004-10-7 19:02:00的发言：4/The second paragraph describes an (earlier) and (widely accepted) hypothesis about how caffeine affects behavior, and then presents evidence that is not consistent with that hypothesis.
第四句，就让我们看看第二段：For many years, caffeine’s effects have been attributed to its inhibition of the production of phosphodiesterase, an enzyme that breaks down the chemical called cyclic AMP. ＃A number of neurotransmitters exert their effects by first increasing cyclic AMP concentrations in target neurons. Therefore, prolonged periods at the elevated concentrations, as might be brought about by a phosphodiesterase inhibitor, could lead to a greater amount of neuron firing and, consequently, to behavioral stimulation. ＃^But Snyder et al point out that the caffeine concentrations needed to inhibit the production of phosphodiesterase in the brain are much higher than those that produce stimulation. ^Moreover, other compounds that block phosphodiesterase’s activity are not stimulants. “分清各段的核心和层次”：本段核心为“an (earlier) and (widely accepted) hypothesis about how caffeine affects behavior”及“evidence that is not consistent with that hypothesis”。这样本段可分为三个句群，以＃分开，第一层次总括，第二层次展开，第三层次指出2个证据evidence。同时，请注意他为什么说(earlier) and (widely accepted) 呢，可参照两点，一点是For many years, 另一点是have been attributed to，即通过时间和时态来表达了(earlier) and (widely accepted) 。（题外话：请注意，这里的第一个论据是存在诉诸权威的错误吗？因为逻辑题里常常会有引用某些人论述的选项。我认为不存在这种错误，诉诸权威是指权威的权威性确实被质疑，或引述内容来自权威但不是其真实意思，在此不存在这两方面问题。如果仔细研究一下逻辑部分的解释，就会发现ETS在逻辑题中很少指出诉诸权威的错误，如果选项不对，往往也是因为其引述内容有缺陷。）
今天又看了一遍牛牛的大作，真是帮助后来人少走了不少弯路，现在也能够在OG上圈圈点点了，但理解上始终达不到大牛这样深刻，有一个问题灰常期待能得到解答，什么是“诉诸权威的错误”？就是反对权威，将自己论点的正确性建立在认为权威错误的基础上吗？前辈为什么会想到了这个问题？ | 
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2005-11-6 01:14:00
