返回列表 发帖

大全-D-11

11.Gloria: Those who advocate tuition tax credits for parents whose children attend private schools maintain that people making no use of a government service should not be forced to pay for it. Yet those who choose to buy bottled water rather than drink water from the local supply are not therefore exempt from paying taxes to maintain the local water supply.

Roger: Your argument is illogical. Children are required by law to attend school. Since school attendance is a matter not of choice, but of legal requirement, it is unfair for the government to force some parents to pay for it twice.

Which of the following responses by Gloria would best refute Roger’s charge that her argument is illogical?

(A) Although drinking water is not required by law, it is necessary for all people, and therefore my analogy is appropriate.

(B) Those who can afford the tuition at a high-priced private school can well bear the same tax burden as those whose children attend public schools.

(C) If tuition tax credits are granted, the tax burden on parents who choose public schools will rise to an intolerable level.

(D) The law does not say that parents must send their children to private schools, only that the children must attend some kind of school, whether public or private.A

(E) Both bottled water and private schools are luxury items, and it is unfair that some citizens should be able to afford them while others cannot.

我有几个问题:

1.roger 反对gloria,他用law是为了针对gloria类比中的哪个漏洞?

2.roger:Your argument is illogical. Children are required by law to attend school. Since school attendance is a matter not of choice, but of legal requirement, it is unfair for the government to force some parents to pay for it twice.他的因果关系,我弄不明白。怎么回pay twice呢?

3.我开始选的D。看到答案后才明白他是在考错误的类比关系。

但我觉得D也可以削弱roger的话,大家认为呢?

收藏 分享

Roger tries to paint Gloria's analogy as illogic by saying one is reqired by law and the other is not. Pay twice: tuition for the private school, and tax which is used to support public school The questionasks for best choice that "refute Roger’s charge that Gloria's argumentis illogical". A directly attacks Roger's claim thatsubstential differences exist between paying for school and paying forwater.

TOP

1. 个人认为,roger是想驳斥gloria的类比,认为其不可比。R说上学不像一个matter or of choice,是一个legal requirement,而饮水则属于一种matter or of choice。所以不可比.

2. 所谓pay twice,是因为学生家长要交私立学校的钱,同时还要交政府的钱,则是双分.

3. D并没有直接反驳R呀,R是批驳G的类比,那反驳就要从类比入手.

TOP

同意poorleafs的解释。对于D,不但题目要求找一个选项削弱R对G的反驳的选项,而D选项与R对G的反驳无关,而且R得出结论的证明方式是在驳斥G的证据的基础上得出来的,实质上R自己并没有证据,如果没有了G的类比证据,R说的小孩入学是法律要求这个证据是得不出结论(这些人Pay双倍不合理),所以要削弱R就要从G的类比是否有证明力着手,所以问题的关键就在于G的类比是否能证明G的论点,D表面看起来好像削弱了R的证据,实际上不是在能否证明R的结论方向上削弱。

TOP

返回列表

站长推荐 关闭


美国top10 MBA VIP申请服务

自2003年开始提供 MBA 申请服务以来,保持着90% 以上的成功率,其中Top10 MBA服务成功率更是高达95%


查看