lsat-21-3-15 （***）

entia

15. Dr. Z: Many of the characterizations of my work offered by Dr. Q are imprecise and such characterizations do not provide an adequate basis for sound criticism of my work.

Which one of the following can be properly inferred from Dr. Z's statement? (A) Some or Dr Q's characterizations of Dr. Z's work provide an adequate basis for sound criticism of Dr. Z's work (B) All of Dr Q's characterizations of Dr. Z's work that are not imprecise provide an adequate basis for sound criticism of Dr. Z's work (C) All of the characterizations of Dr. Z's work by Dr. Q that do not provide an adequate basis for sound criticism of Dr Z's work are imprecise (D) If the characterization of someone's work is precise, then it provides a sound basis for criticizing that

lawyer 大大我在研习了您的大作后坐的此题。直接选了a （答案e) 。 因为我对您的几个帖子印象极深http://forum.chasedream.com/dispbbs.asp?boardid=24&star=3&replyid=610560&id=69723&skin=0&page=1

帖子中有以下部分

C). Some species of animals have eyes that will not suffer any damage when exposed to unfiltered sunlight错的原因：有些人容易选这个，因为原文最后一句话说HOLE会伤害很多动物的眼睛，就是说很多动物的眼睛会受伤害，既然有很多的眼睛受伤害，就有不受伤害的。错。关键是理解原文最后一句话的many。其实相当于some ，表达的是有的概念，就是可以是1-100。相对或取非的概念为NONE。就是说它们可以包括全部100。所以有可能全部动物眼睛都会受HOLE伤害。即C可能对，也可能不对，不是MUST BE TRUE。故错。

那么a中的some 就是原文的many改写嘛。 lawyer大大可以给我解释一下么？？

lawyer_1

原文是donnt。意思正好相反

entia

谢谢.明白了

Bensontuo

entia 发表于 2004-12-18 10:22
15. Dr. Z: Many of the characterizations of my work offered by Dr. Q are imprecise and such characte ...

In the stimulus we learn that many characterizations are imprecise, and all those imprecise ones are inadequate. (Note that I'm shaving off details, which can be dangerous in real time, but is also often necessary for moving fast.)

Our job with this question is to find an answer that must be true. We can infer (E) - there must be at least one inadequate characterization. With many being imprecise, and each and every one of those imprecise characterizations being inadequate, we can't avoid but have at least one be inadequate.

In fact, as the original poster mentioned, we could even infer that there are two or more. However, if we know that there are two or more, we surely can say that there is at least one. If (E) has stated that there is exactly one inadequate characterization, then it would be incorrect.

(A) is tempting, but we don't know if there are any adequate characterizations. The stimulus only tells us about inadequate ones.

(B) is similar to (A) - we don't know anything about the precise characterizations (or, more technically, the "not imprecise" ones!).

(C) is reversed logic. While we know that the imprecise ones are inadequate, there may be inadequate ones that are precise, but inadequate for other reasons.

(D) is too broad. We only know about the suspiciously named Dr. Z and Dr. Q.