求助：Last 逻辑题1-1-17，1-4-10，1-4-22

susan7375

1-1-17
The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is that it robs the human race. It takes from posterity, as well as the existing generation, and from those who dissent from the opinion even more than from those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth; if it is wrong, they lose what is almost as great a benefit: the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.
Which one of the following best expresses the conclusion presented in the argument?
A.    Silencing the expression of an opinion is robbing the human race.
B.    Silencing the expression of an opinion harms those who dissent more than those who agree.
C.    Anyone who agrees with an opinion would not want to silence its expression.
D.    Gaining a clearer perception and livelier impression of truth is a great benefit.
E.    The greatest benefit is the opportunity of exchanging truth for error.
take from
减去; 减损; 降低
The answer is A.
A实际上就是题干第一句话，为什么是conclusion呢？这个题目的解题思路是什么呢？

1-4-10
It has always been difficult to understand the basis of politics in the People’s Republic of China. Because the system is effectively closed, it is impossible to know with any degree of confidence who is allied with whom and for what reasons. Yet Chinese politics does exhibit many of the external characteristics of factional political systems, as found in more open societies. It is legitimate to conclude, therefore, that China has a factional political system.
A.    All open political systems are factional political systems.
B.    All factional political systems are closed political systems.
C.    All closed political systems are factional political systems.
D.    China’s political system is more open than many existing factional political systems.
E.    China’s political system is more closed than all existing factional political systems.
The answer is C. Why?

1-4-22
It is illogical to infer a second and different effect from a cause which is known only by one particular effect. This is incorrect because the inferred effect must necessarily be produced by some different characteristic of the cause than is the observed effect, which already serves entirely to describe the cause.
Which one of the following arguments makes the same logical error as the one described by the author in the passage?
(A) An anonymous donor gave a thousand dollars to our historical society. I would guess that that individual also volunteers at the children’s hospital.
(B) The radioactive material caused a genetic mutation, which, in turn, caused the birth defect. Therefore, the radioactive material caused the birth defect.
(C) The tiny, unseen atom is the source of immense power. It must be its highly complex structure that produces this power.
(D) The city orchestra received more funds from the local government this year than ever before. Clearly this administration is more civic-minded than previous ones.
(E) If I heat water, which is a liquid, it evaporates. If I heat hundreds of other liquids like water, they evaporate. Therefore, if I heat any liquid like water, it will evaporate
答案是A，
我对题干的理解是充分条件与必要条件搞混了。充分条件可以推出好几个结论，不一定是只有一个。题干中讲一种原因会推出一种特别的结论，而这种结论可以完全解释这个原因，所以从这种原因中再推出别的结论就不对了。其实，结果对于原因只是必要性而已，而原因对结果是充分性的，所以错误在于忽略了一个原因可以导致若干个结果，每个结果只是必要而已，即把必要性当做充分性了。我觉得5个选项都不对。答案A如何解释？

jerry_link

1.这道题的行文结构就是总分的结构，而且正像阅读中所说的那样，一段话的主题句可能是首句可能是尾句，所以答案就是主题句的改写
2.应该是一个支持题或假设题，也只有C能推出中国政治体系是一个派系的政治体系
3.我觉得好像不是充分条件与必要条件的搞混，而是说在一个已知我们仅知道一个事物的一部分影响的情况下，不能推出来第二个并且是不同的影响。
A正好符合，我们只知道他是historical society的捐助者，而不能推出它也是children’s hospital的捐助者

若有错误，请指教

zjxmlily

刚想问第22题，就有人贴出来了，真好：）
我对这道题的题目本身就不太理解，可以解释一下吗？
谢谢

susan7375

Many tks!

jerry_link

这道题的题干首先说明，我们通过了解一个特定的现象（或叫影响）所认识一个事物，对这个事物推断出第二个并且是不同的效果是不合逻辑的。
然后进一步阐述了这为什么是错误的。是因为，我们要想推出来另一个不同现象，必须是从这个事物的一些不同的特点出发得到的，不能是已经观察到的现象。而且我们对这事物的认识完全是基于通过这个以观察到的现象进行的描述。

简而言之，就是，我们所了解的这个事物的全部就是一个特定的现象，没法在这个基础上得到第二个不同的现象

mucully

1-4-10的逻辑推导关系还是不清楚说,能麻烦NN们画一下下么?多谢多谢

[此贴子已经被作者于2005-2-25 10:09:27编辑过]