[求助]这道题谁能给讲讲

vivre

LSAT – test 01 – Sec. 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 c
ause than is the observed effect, which already serves entirely to describe th
e 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 wo
uld 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 highl
y 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 previ
ous ones.
(E) If I heat water, which is liquid, it evaporates. If I heat hundreds of oth
er liquids like water, they evaporate. Therefore, if I heat any liquid like wa
ter, it will evaporate

uclb5550

your answer choice is right, but the explanation is not exactly correct.

first, the author's argument itself has no problem. what is problematic is the faulty reasoning described by the author. so, the quesion is to ask you to find the logical error "described" by the author rather than the one "implied" in his argument.

second, it matters not whether the donor is anonymous or open-named. what really matters here is the difference between "historical society" and "the childern's hospital". since the cause that contributes to the individual's donation to historical society cannot be reasonablity applied on another effect _to visit children's hospital. right?

StephanieYun

the answer I remember is A. right?
the error which is stated in the argument is that the conclusion it drawed contradict to its premise offered in the earlier argument . The reasoning in the argument is like this : there is a cause , which is known only by one effect, and someone would like to infer another and different effect  from the cause . but by its definition , the cause is explained by only one effect , and the whole cause by itself could only be described by the only effect. On the base of this definition and limited condition, how could someone logically draw another different inferrence from the same cause ? ------compare the definition with the inferrence . Thus , this kind of error is the principle implied in the argument . The correct answer choice would be the one which could be processed in the same error reasoning of principle implied in the agument .

Then we could turn to the five answer choices.

(A) An anonymous donor gave a thousand dollars to our historical society. I wo
uld guess that that individual also volunteers at the children's hospital.
Pay attention to the words " anonymous donor ", the only effect that  could describe this " anonymous donor "  is his volunteer behavoir and attribution, the reasoning which is the same as the one in the argument . Thus, how could someone infer that the same donor also donated the children's hospital ? ------another different effect.  





生活是一杯清茶