lsat19(1)

bryan0806

up a little!!

lawyer_1

见9楼，已解释得比原来清楚点

bryan0806

thanks!!

看来搞清楚 要点 真的很重要

我也搞错implication的含义

implication

the effect that an action or decision will have on something else in the future:

The company is cutting back its spending and I wonder what the implications will be for our department.
What are the implications of the new law?

[此贴子已经被作者于2004-8-21 21:56:20编辑过]

fredshen

The passage never states which of two inconsistencies are right or wrong. It just points out they are inconsistencies. So your logic is wrong.  I found Kaplan made the similar mistake.

The key here I think the two inconsistencies are two conclusions, as indicated in the passage. Here is my reasoning

Premise 1) U's court goal is to protect all human rights. P2: U's constituition doesnt conver all human rights. Conclusion 1) U's court must use principle outside the consituition to protect some human rights. P3: Human rights will be subject to the whim of whoever holds judical power unless there is a single standard, and that single standard is consituition C2: Therefore U2's court  must follow the explicit provisons of consituition in order to protect all human rights. Because C1 and C2 are inconsistent, P1 must be false. Well, it is equally possible P2 or P3 is false

以下是引用睡熊在2004-3-14 12:57:00的发言：
24. The role of the Uplandian supreme court is to protect all human rights against abuses of government power. Since the constitution of Uplandia is not explicit about all human rights the supreme court must sometimes resort to principles outside the explicit provisions of the constitution in justifying its decisions. However, human rights will be subject to the whim of whoever holds judicial power unless the supreme court is bound to adhere to a single objective standard, namely, the constitution. Therefore, nothing but the explicit provisions of the constitution can be used to justify the court's decisions. Since these conclusions are inconsistent with each other, it cannot be true that the role of the Uplandian supreme court is to protect all human rights against abuses of government power.
The reasoning that leads to the conclusion that the first sentence in the passage is false is flawed because the argument
(A) ignores date that offer reasonable support for a general claim and focuses on a single example that argues against that claim
(B) seeks to defend a view on the grounds that the view is widely held and the decisions based on that view are often accepted as correct
(C) rejects a claim as false on the grounds that those who make that claim could profit if that claim is accepted by others
(D) makers an unwarranted assumption that what is true of each member of a group taken separately is also true of the group as a whole
(E) concludes that a particular premise is false when it is equally possible for that premise to be true and some other premise false

---

---

The answer is (E). If we break down the layout of reasoning above, we can have the follows: 1. Main Statement: MS; 2. Premise to Main Statement P; 3. Counter-premise P'; 4. Conclusion: MS is false. 
        
The conclusion MS being false is only based on the inconsistence between the two counter-premises and the assumption that P is false, while P' owns the same odds to be such.