求教：大全－C－14

freelance

Dr. A: The new influenza vaccine is useless at best and possibly dangerous. I would never use it on a patient.

Dr. B: But three studies published in the Journal of Medical Associates have rated that vaccine as unusually effective.

Dr. A: The studies must have been faulty because the vaccine is worthless.

In which of the following is the reasoning most similar to that of Dr. A?

(A) Three of my patients have been harmed by that vaccine during the past three weeks, so the vaccine is unsafe.

(B) Jerrold Jersey recommends this milk, and I don’t trust Jerrold Jersey, so I won’t buy this milk.

(C) Wingzz tennis balls perform best because they are far more effective than any other tennis balls.

(D) I’m buying Vim Vitamins. Doctors recommend them more often than they recommend any other vitamins, so Vim Vitamins must be good.

(E) Since University of Muldoon graduates score about 20 percent higher than average on the GMAT, Sheila Lee, a University of Muldoon graduate, will score about 20 percent higher than average when she takes the GMAT.

请教一下本题的推理？能理论一些最好

leeon

Dr A makes a logic error of circular reasoning:

A is true-->negative of A is not true because A is true.

freelance

答案不是A，我开始大概也犯了类似的错误，感觉此题的推理比较陌生。

lawyer_1

原文的逻辑错误是循环论证没错（更多的有关循环论证的见“跟LAWYER学逻辑”中的FLAW IN THE REASONING）。但A不是循环论证错误，如果说A有逻辑错误，那是例子太少，没代表性。答案是C：因为more effective than any other ，所以 best 。前提和结论一样。

leeon

Faint,  I just give an example to illustrate the logic error of circular reasoning, here A just stands for one thing, not the choice.

joe11

既然不是 A 那就是 C 了。我也不明白。

B,D,E 是3段论推理，而原文是因果推理，所以 B,D,E 错。

up, up ...

lawyer_1

因果推理本身不是逻辑错误，是没有因果关系，却说是因果关系等等才是逻辑错误。

原文Dr.A的推理：因为vaccine is worthless（useless），所以The studies must have been faulty ，这个研究就是rated that vaccine as unusually effective.即vaccine is uesless。结论和前提一样。故为循环论证错误。和C一样

joe11

如果我在鸡蛋里面挑骨头的话，还可以讲：

原文的假设中没有事实依据，而 A 是以事实作为论据的。

Dr. A: The new influenza vaccine is useless.

Dr. A: The studies must have been faulty because the vaccine is worthless.

你说它是循环论证也没错。我简单认为其为因果结构。

能不能再详细解释一下A的错误？感谢感谢。

[此贴子已经被作者于2004-10-22 22:16:02编辑过]

freelance

以下是引用lawyer_1在2004-10-22 21:57:00的发言：

因果推理本身不是逻辑错误，是没有因果关系，却说是因果关系等等才是逻辑错误。

原文Dr.A的推理：因为vaccine is worthless（useless），所以The studies must have been faulty ，这个研究就是rated that vaccine as unusually effective.即vaccine is uesless。结论和前提一样。故为循环论证错误。和C一样

我认为lawyer_1 这里有个错误：unusually effective 应该是非常有效的意思吧，而不是 useless

lawyer_1

以下是引用freelance在2004-10-22 22:49:00的发言：

我认为lawyer_1 这里有个错误：unusually effective 应该是非常有效的意思吧，而不是 useless

非常有效这个结果是错误的，不就是无效USELESS。当然你可以说正好有效，不算非常有效，也不算无效，那就偏离了原文。