请教费费50

lukrenee

50. Joseph: My encyclopedia says that the mathematician Pierre de Fermat died in 1665 without leaving behind any written proof for a theorem that he claimed nonetheless to have proved. Probably this alleged theorem simply cannot be proved, since---as the article points out---no one else has been able to prove it. Therefore it is likely that Fermat was either lying or else mistaken when he made his claim.

Laura: Your encyclopedia is out of date. Recently someone has in fact proved Fermat’s theorem. And since the theorem is provable, your claim---that Fermat was lying or mistaken---clearly is wrong.

Which one of the following most accurately describes a reasoning error in Laura’s argument?

(A) It purports to establish its conclusion by making a claim that, if true, would actually contradict that conclusion.

(B) It mistakenly assumes that the quality of a person’s character can legitimately be taken to guarantee the accuracy of the claims that person has made.

(C) It mistakes something that is necessary for its conclusion to follow for something that ensures that the conclusion follows.

(D) It uses the term “provable” without defining it.

(E) It fails to distinguish between a true claim that has mistakenly between believed to be false and a false claim that has mistakenly been believed to be true.

C是对的，我的问题是为什么B不对，说一个人没有欺骗和撒谎是对他性格的判断，通过一个人所发表结论的正确性就去判断一个人的性格也是L犯的错误呀，请NN们指点。

mindfree

I could not follow your reasoning why B is correct. B alone might be a good claim but I do not see how it relates to the argument of Laura's. Laura made no claim based on the personality of Fermat. You have to find that answer that is relevant to the reasoning and conclusion of the argument.

lukrenee

(B) It mistakenly assumes that the quality of a person’s character （your claim---that Fermat was lying or mistaken---clearly is wrong）can legitimately be taken to guarantee the accuracy of the claims that person has made（And since the theorem is provable）.

黄色部分是句中L的分析，她说因为F的理论可证，即他的CLAIMS是正确的，所以F没撒谎，即他的性格特征（逻辑上只能证明在这个问题上F没撒谎而不是F这个人就从来不撒谎，L的结论没有限定性）。

请指教

Maggieyin

请问总教头“ a theorem that he claimed nonetheless to have proved”怎么理解？谢谢。

lukrenee

一个他提出但没有证明的定理

lawyer_1

以下是引用lukrenee在2004-11-17 12:59:00的发言：

(B) It mistakenly assumes that the quality of a person’s character （your claim---that Fermat was lying or mistaken---clearly is wrong）can legitimately be taken to guarantee the accuracy of the claims that person has made（And since the theorem is provable）.

黄色部分是句中L的分析，她说因为F的理论可证，即他的CLAIMS是正确的，所以F没撒谎，即他的性格特征（逻辑上只能证明在这个问题上F没撒谎而不是F这个人就从来不撒谎，L的结论没有限定性）。

请指教

1。L反驳的理由是某个理论已经有人证明的，故J得出的结论是错的。即他反驳的方法用事实，并没涉及人。

2。F在某个问题上有没有撒谎是个结论，两个人用不同方法去证明，得出不同结果。他们支持自己结论的方法也没涉及到某个人如何如何，所以不可信等等的言语。所以不涉及人身，所以B错。

[此贴子已经被作者于2004-11-17 20:40:22编辑过]

Maggieyin

谢谢啦