LSAT－5－2－5

swimmingfrog

5.(D)     Observatory director: Some say that funding the megatelescope will benefit only the astronomers who will work with it. This dangerous point of view, applied to the work of Maxwell, Newton, or Einstein, would have stifled their research and deprived the world of beneficial applications, such as the development of radio, that followed from that research.

If the statements above are put forward as an argument in favor of development of the megatelescope, which one of the following is the strongest criticism of that argument?

(A) It appeals to the authority of experts who cannot have known all the issues involved in construction of the megatelescope.

(B) It does not identify those opposed to development of the megatelescope.

(C) It launches a personal attack on opponents of the megatelescope by accusing them of having a dangerous point of view.

(D) It does not distinguish between the economic and the intellectual sense of “benefit.”（E）

(E) It does not show that the proposed megatelescope research is worthy of comparison with that of eminent scientists in its potential for applications.

How to understand this (E)?

lawyer_1

没有显示所建议的megatelescope研究在可能的应用上能和那些卓越的科学家的工作相比。

swimmingfrog

1.Some say that funding the megatelescope will benefit only the astronomers who will work with it.

资助megatelescope 会令从事negatelescope 研究的天文学家受益。

2。This dangerous point of view, applied to the work of Maxwell, Newton, or Einstein, would have stifled their research and deprived the world of beneficial applications,that followed from that research.such as the development of radio

这种危险的想法，应用到Maxwell, Newton, or Einstein的工作，会压制他们的研究并剥夺世人对其研究的有益应用，如收音机的发展。

问题：如果上述陈述用来支持magatelescope的发展，下列哪个是最强烈的反对：

E.没有显示所建议的megatelescope研究在可能的应用上能和那些卓越的科学家的工作相比。

还是理解不了原文到底在想告诉我什么。还有选项里的“研究在可能的应用上能和那些卓越的科学家的工作相比”跟原文有什么关系。

现在做lsat，简直就是折磨，经常能知道每个句子的意思，就是整篇文章在说什么不清楚，逻辑关系一塌糊涂。

要不就是搞不懂选项在说什么，或者和原文到底有什么关系。

头大，头大的很啊！！

lawyer_1

1。这种题型是指出逻辑错误，不是WEAKEN题

2。原文的推理错误是：如果megatelescope的研究牛顿和这些人例子有可比性，那结论就可以得出，但原文没给这可比性，这就是原文的推理错误。

3。 建立逻辑思路需要一个过程，建议你看一下置顶贴的“考试时是如何做逻辑题的”，还有那篇“跟lawyer学逻辑”，里面有些基本知识。

swimmingfrog

啊呀，终于懂了。就是说，fuding这个主意对magetelescope 不危险，用到牛顿等大科学家那，就危险。唉，竟然没反应过来，受益就是不危险。

我总是理解字面的意思，而且好多问题得看许多遍才能达到突然间明白的地步。看来阅读很是成问题啊！

dalunzi

swimmingfrog，不同意你 “啊呀，终于懂了。就是说，fuding这个主意对magetelescope 不危险，用到牛顿等大科学家那，就危险。唉，竟然没反应过来，受益就是不危险。”的理解。  lawyer_1给出的“原文的推理错误是：如果megatelescope的研究牛顿和这些人例子有可比性，那结论就可以得出，但原文没给这可比性，这就是原文的推理错误。”就是这题的思路啊。作者反对这样一种说法“研究A只能给进行研究的人（只能给这一领域）带来益处”作者的证据是“牛顿，爱因斯坦等在研究B时出现了副产品C,给人类（研究者以外的人；另外的领域）带来了好处”。言下之意研究A也会带来副产品D\E什么的给研究者以外的人带来好处。而答案正是表明研究A和牛顿等的例子没有建立可比性，所以不能说明它会给其他领域带来益处。

swimmingfrog

谢谢！你这么一说，我才真正明白过来啊。我现在就是体会不出“言下之意”

还得多练！

Bensontuo

swimmingfrog 发表于 2004-12-18 02:51
5.(D)     Observatory director: Some say that funding the megatelescope will ben ...

spot the question type: Weaken of the weaken

Core of the argument:

Observatory director is in favor of the funding, and who object one point of view which does not favor of the funding.

So, what we want to do is to

1. object od's reason to object the view by indicating the reason is flaw or not relevant

2. object od's reason to object the view by indicating od does not offer sufficient evidence to make the reason justify.


Which is to say, od must assume that the research from the prominent scientist must be relies on the benefits of it, and if it has to be true, we need to have 2 samples fro 2 groups to compare.

E perfectly shows that concept