|
以下是引用tocean0222在2003-7-11 10:24:00的发言：
这两题我跟老迈的答案一样！另外我有问题时这2题，大家帮忙看看;
18. If the reasoning now playing on the jazz program is really “ Louis Armstrong recorded in concert in 1989.” As the announcer said, then Louis Armstrong was playing some of the best jazz of his career years after his death. Since the trumpeter was definitely Louis Armstrong, somehow the announcer must have gotten the date of the recording wrong.
The patter of reasoning in the argument above is most similar to that in which one of the following arguments?
(A) The museum is reported as having acquired a painting “ by Malvtna Hoffman, an artist who died in 1966”. But Hoffman was sculptor, not a painter, so the report must be wrong about the acquisition being a painting.
(B) This painting titled LA Toilette is Berthe Morisot’s La Toilette only if a painting can be in two museums at the same time. Since nothing can be in two places at once, this painting must somehow have been mistitled.
(C) Only if a twentieth-century Mexican artist painted in Japan during the seventeenth century can this work both be “by Frida Kahlo” as labeled and the seventeenth century Japanese landscape it appears to be. Since it is what it appears to be, the label is wrong.
(D) Unless Kathe Kollwitz was both a sculptor and a printmaker, the volunteer museum guide is wrong in his attribution of this sculpture. Since what Kollwitz is known for is her prints, the guide must be wrong.
(E) If this painting is a portrait done in acrylic, it cannot be by Elisabeth Vigger-Lebrun, since acrylic paint was developed only after her death. Thus, since it is definitely a portrait, the paint must not be acrylic.
答案是C，我选的a
15. Funding opponent: Some people favor city funding for the spaying and neutering of pets at the owners request. They claims that the decrease in the number of stray animals to contend with will offset the costs of the funding. These people fail to realize that over 80 percent of pet owners already pay to spay or neuter their animals, so there will not be a significant decrease in the number of stray animals in the city if funding is provided.
Each of the following, if true, strengthens the argument of the funding opponent EXCEPT:
(A) Very few of the stray animals in the city are offspring of pets.
(B) Many pet owners would have their animals spayed or neutered sooner if funding were provided by the city.
(C) The only way the number of tray animals can decrease is if existing strays are spayed or neutered.
(D) Most people owners who do not have their pets spayed or neutered believed that spaying and neutering are morally wrong.
(E) The majority of pets that are not spayed or neutered are used for breeding purposes, and are not likely to produce stray animals
这题就没怎么看懂，答案B,请指点下！
1.
原文：
如果某人的作品是在某个时间A做的，那么推出一个明显矛盾的时间（既前提错了）前提有两个因数。（一个是该人的作品，一个是作品时间时间）。肯定了一个，那么另一个（时间）一定错了。
C：
如果 this work both be “by Frida Kahlo” as labeled and the seventeenth century Japanese landscape it appears to be
那么该作品是twentieth-century 时候画的。(时间又矛盾了，说明前提错了。)
肯定前提一个条件，就否定了另外一个条件。和原文的逻辑关系一样。。。
a) 体现不出原文 如果A和B成立，那么C成立。。可是C明显是错的。。而A是对的，那么B一定错了这种逻辑关系。
2. 原文：should funding 阉割PET，因为 stray animal would decrease 花在对付stray animal 上的钱会减少。（方法评价）
驳：其他原因导致推不出结果（stray animal would not decrease）
原文原因：80%的人原来也阉割。。所以不会剧烈减少
A很少的stray animal are offspring of pet 所以推不出结果
C 只有stray animal阉割了，stray animal 才会减少。所以推不出结果
D没有阉割的PET是配种用的，不会产生STRAY ANIMAL
E 很多没有阉割PET的人认为阉割是不道德的。即不是钱的原因。
B我觉得是无关。
[此贴子已经被作者于2003-7-11 21:58:32编辑过] | 
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2003-7-11 20:54:00
楼主
