费费135的解释是这样的
There should be 2 assumptions to support the hypothesis. The 1st assumption of the author is that only venereal disease will be treated by mercury in Beethoven’s time. The 2nd assumption is only some people in Beethoven's time will ingest mercury, if all people ingest mercury, the evidence is not useful. So, some people in Beethoven's time did not ingest mercury. The answer should be B.
但是,
别人驳道
The explanation above is ineffective and misleading. The negate statement of choice B should be some people ingested mercury, which is irrelevant to the conclusion, rather than, the definition of assumption offered by ETS , that the negate statement of an assumption should weaken the conclusion. As in Choice B, some people did not ingest mercury means it is possible that some people ingested mercury, and so it can not ensure Beethoven had ingested or not.
In addition, that the assumption of (X)all people did not ingested mercury will support the conclusion does not sufficient lead to (Y)some people did not ingested mercury will support the (Z)conclusion. In this case. you can not reason that X-->Y, and X->Z, then Y-->Z.
Choice A is the best answer. It correctly establishes the causal relationship that if none of the mercury introduced into the body can be eliminated and if Beethoven did ingested mercury, then the mercury would be found in the body and cause conclusive result of the chemical analysis, thus concludes the correctness of the hypothesis. |