国际顶尖MBA申请交流平台--TOPWAY MBA

标题: question for help [打印本页]

作者: isuffering 时间: 2003-5-12 20:09 标题: question for help

Many plant varieties used in industrially developed
nations to improve cultivated crops come from less-
developed nations. No compensation is paid on the
grounds that the plants used are "the common her-
itage of humanity." Such reasoning is, however,
flawed. After all, no one suggests that coal, oil, and
ores should be extracted without payment.

Which of the following best describes an aspect of
the method used by the author in the argument above?
(A) The author proceeds from a number of specific
observations to a tentative generalization.
(B) The author applies to the case under discussion
facts about phenomena assumed to be similar
in some relevant respect.
(C) A position is strengthened by showing that the
opposite of that position would have logically
absurd consequences.
(D) A line of reasoning is called into question on
the grounds that it confuses cause and effect
in a causal relation.
(E) An argument is analyzed by separating state-
ments of fact from individual value judgments.

answer is B,
but I think C is also the right choice,
since
A position( Such reasoning is, however,flawed.)
is strengthened by showing that
the opposite of that position(No compensation is paid on the
grounds that the plants used are "the common heritage of humanity.")
would have logically absurd consequences(coal, oil, and
ores should be extracted without payment).

So can anyone help me to kill choice C?

作者: StephanieYun 时间: 2003-5-12 22:03

the point is that the opposition you think isn' t the real " opposition"

作者: isuffering 时间: 2003-5-13 18:55

still not convincible to me, any furthur discussion?

作者: StephanieYun 时间: 2003-5-14 11:41

“No compensation is paid on the
grounds that the plants used are "the common heritage of humanity."------is this sentence you mean that would be the opposition of the position ,and consequencely , the oppositiion would have absurd consequence?

if you think of the analogy in such way , you are wrong .

just think it over

作者: isuffering 时间: 2003-5-14 17:28

hey,my logical thinking is as follows,

the author's position (1) is that
that"No compensation is paid on the grounds that the plants used are "the common heritage of humanity""is flawed,
i.e.,compensation should be paid on the plants though the plants used are" the common heritage of humanity"

and the opposite of the position(2) is that
No compensation is paid on the grounds that the plants used are "the common heritage of humanity",
and if the position (2) is right,
then
No compensation should be paid on "the common heritage of humanity",
and since
coal, oil, and ores belong to "the common heritage of humanity"
thus,
coal, oil, and ores should be extracted without payment
and it's absurd,
i.e.,the logical consequence of the position(2) is absurd,right?

looking for furthur discussion,thanks a lot.

作者: StephanieYun 时间: 2003-5-14 20:58

以下是引用isuffering在2003-5-14 17:28:03的发言：
hey,my logical thinking is as follows,

the author's position (1) is that
that"No compensation is paid on the grounds that the plants used are "the common heritage of humanity""is flawed,
i.e.,compensation should be paid on the plants though the plants used are" the common heritage of humanity"

and the opposite of the position(2) is that
No compensation is paid on the grounds that the plants used are "the common heritage of humanity",
and if the position (2)  is right,
then
No compensation should be paid on "the common heritage of humanity",
and since
  coal, oil, and ores belong to "the common heritage of humanity"
thus,
  coal, oil, and ores should be extracted without payment
and it's absurd,
i.e.,the logical consequence of the position(2) is absurd,right?

looking for furthur discussion,thanks a lot.

while , it's true that the coal ,oil and ores should be extracted with payment
, as when compared with the fact about the plant varieties used without payment,
we could infer, that extracting the oils ,coals,ores without payment would be an absurd consequence , but think it over, the consequence of what ?

In fact , this absurd consequence is directed to the oils ,coals and ores, not directed to the plant varieties , thus, how could say what C tells (C) A position is strengthened by showing that the
opposite of that position would have logically
absurd consequences.

it's hoped that the answer would do a job

作者: isuffering 时间: 2003-5-14 22:18

the absurd consequence is directed to the coal, oil and ores ,
directed to the common heritage of humanity,where the reasoning, the position(2) is based on .
I mean the reasoning, the position(2) based on the common heritage of humanity ,has the absurd consequence , right?

looking for furthur discussion.thanks

[此贴子已经被作者于2003-5-14 22:21:50编辑过]

欢迎光临国际顶尖MBA申请交流平台--TOPWAY MBA (http://forum.topway.org/)