GWD6-16(BF題)

[ck1109]

請問為何(E)不對?
the second is further information that substantiates that evidence
這句有錯誤嗎??

[吳]

請問為何(E)不對?
the second is further information that substantiates that evidence
這句有錯誤嗎??

E.The first is evidence that has been used to support a conclusion that the historian criticizes; the second is further information that substantiates that evidence.

第二句不是支持第一句

[dibert8]

這一題轉了三個論點:
1. traditional view: N&L's discoveries were independent
2. scholars' argument: traditional view is false (reason: 第一句粗體)
3. Historian: N&L's discoveries are independent (reason: 第二句粗體)

(A) an opposing position 無中生有
(A) (B) overall position = historian's position; 說第一句粗體(evidence) 支持 Historian ,並沒有!
(C) intermediate conclusion (= scholars' argument) ?=> Historian ,並沒有!
(D) 第一句粗體 (evidence) => scholars' argument (conclusion) => Historian 反對; 第二句粗體 (evidence) => Historian; 是也!
(E) 第一句同 (D) ;第二句粗體 (evidence) = 第一句粗體 (evidence), 不是!

[amanikang]

第ㄧ個BF說這個有關牛頓微積分的萊布尼茲的筆記是寫在萊布尼茲的微積分概念方法的發展之前
所以就提供了證明傳統的觀點是錯的 也就是萊布尼茲不是自己想的
第二個BF說萊布尼茲的筆記的內容都侷限在牛頓早期書裡的部份 而這部份比牛頓的微積分概念方法還要出現的早 那不就ㄧ定比萊不尼茲更早嗎?
也就是更近ㄧ步的證明第ㄧ個BF提到的筆記
那不是應該是E嗎 頭好痛

[dibert8]

萊布尼茲的筆記侷限在牛頓的微積分概念之前的部份,說明牛頓微積分的主體和萊布尼茲後來發展的微積分主體是不相干的.所以推翻第一個 BF 下的結論.