lsat逻辑真是难，请教 LSAT-4-3-11（LAWYER改标题，建议字大点）

三脚猫

11.   rofessor Smith published a paper arguing that a chemical found in minute quantities in most drinking water had an adverse effect on the human nervous system. Existing scientific theory held that no such effect was possible because there was no neural mechanism for bringing it about. Several papers by well-known scientists in the field followed, unanimously purporting to prove Professor Smith wrong. This clearly shows that the scientific establishment was threatened by Professor Smith’s work and conspired to discredit it.

Which one of the following is the central flaw in the argument given by the author of the passage?

(A) The author passes over the possibility that Professor Smith had much to gain should Professor Smith’s discovery have found general acceptance.

(B) The author fails to mention whether or not Professor Smith knew that the existence of the alleged new effect was incompatible with established scientific theory.

(C) The author fails to show why the other scientists could not have been presenting evidence in order to establish the truth of the matter.

(D) The author neglects to clarify what his or her relationship to Professor Smith is.（C）

(E) The author fails to indicate what, if any, effect the publication of Professor Smith’s paper had on the public’s confidence in the safety of most drinking water.

我选了A, ？？？？？

chelseayang

the flaw of the stimulus is: the establishenment disagreed with Prof. Smith and that the establishement felt threatened and conspiared to discredit Professor Smith, without giving any evidence to support this claim. C is piointing to this flaw.

suibian

A: the author passes over the possibility that if professor Smith's descovery should have found general acceptance ,professor Smith had much to gain.

作者忽视了：如果smith教授的discovery 被普遍接受的话，他会获利很多。（很有可能就是想要获利才出这个paper的）这是support.

Stimulus 教授说水里的一种chemical对人的神经系统有害，科学家们认为不可能。后来很多著名的科学家也相继发表论文证明教授是错误的。

结论：科学家们认为教授threaten science establishment

逻辑错误：不能说科学家们认为教授错了，就说科学家认为教授threaten science establishment 。有可能教授真的是错了。

所以C对。 作者没说明白为什么科学家不摆出证据澄清事实。即科学家没说明他们真正反对教授的理由。

个人理解，还需版主纠正

三脚猫

多谢chelseayang和suibian，我把A的意思理解错了，看了suibian的翻译明白了，只可能是C。完全读懂了lsat的句子，才能做对逻辑。我还得多多努力啊