大全TEST 2001年6月section II 24

hpp920

24.   Lawyer: The defendant wanted to clear the snow off his car and in doing so knocked snow on the sidewalk. This same snow melted and refroze, forming ice on which the plaintiff fell, breaking her hip. We argue that the defendant maliciously harmed the plaintiff, because malice is intention to cause harm and the defendant intentionally removed the snow from his car and put it on the sidewalk, which, unbeknownst to the defendant at the time, would subsequently cause the injury suffered by the plaintiff.

The flawed reasoning in which one of the following is most similar to that in the lawyer’s argument?

(A) Alice asked her sister to lie in court. Unbeknownst to Alice’s sister, lying in court is against the law. So what Alice asked her sister to do was illegal.

(B) Bruce wanted to eat the mincemeat pie. Unbeknownst to Bruce, the mincemeat pie was poisonous. So Bruce wanted to eat poison.

(C) Cheryl denigrated the wine. Cheryl’s sister had picked out the wine. So though she may not have realized it, Cheryl indirectly denigrated her sister.

(D) Deon had lunch with Ms. Osgood. Unbeknownst to Deon, Ms. Osgood is generally thought to be an industrial spy. So Deon had lunch with an industrial spy.（B）

(E) Edwina bought a car from Mr. Yancy, then resold it. Unbeknownst to Edwina, Mr. Yancy had stolen the car. So Edwina sold a stolen car.

请问这题的reasoning flaw是属于哪一类?

lawyer_1

原文的逻辑错误是从 unbeknownst 推出intention（故意）

leeon

原文的推理：被告做了一件事－－被告不知道这件事会伤害原告－>被告是故意伤害原告。

leeon

撞在一起了，这个是LSAT上的类比题。逻辑错误很难用那些逻辑分类把他归纳起来。如果是AA，可能将其逻辑错误规类为无理由的假设好一点。因为原文的因果关系有问题。

lawyer_1

同意leeon的分析。逻辑错误不一定要指出是何逻辑错误，只要知道原文是如何推理的就行。找个推理类似的就行。

hpp920

同意leeon的分析。逻辑错误不一定要指出是何逻辑错误，只要知道原文是如何推理的就行。找个推理类似的就行。

明白了, 非常非常感谢两位!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!