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
答案为a作者: crane_gh 时间: 2003-8-5 22:06
一个老美 所给 答案是 e
我个人认为也选 e作者: crane_gh 时间: 2003-8-5 22:30
刚刚答案有误 应该选a
infer a second and different effect from a cause which is known only by one particular effect
That is the significant item to consider.....
But in E, you are not inferring a second AND DIFFERENT effect from the cause.....作者: 把我宠坏 时间: 2003-8-27 01:09
应该可以这样理解：
cause---An anonymous donor
one particular effect---gave a thousand dollars to our historical society
a second and different effect --- also volunteers at the children’s hospital
欢迎光临 国际顶尖MBA申请交流平台--TOPWAY MBA (http://forum.topway.org/)
