請問2題費費邏輯

[u9069700]

44. Legal theorist: It is unreasonable to incarcerate anyone for any other reason than that he or she is a serious threat to the property or lives of other people. The breaking of a law does not justify incarceration, for lawbreaking proceeds either from ignorance of the law or of the effects of one’s actions, or from the free choice of the lawbreaker. Obviously mere ignorance cannot justify incarcerating a lawbreaker, and even free choice on the part of the lawbreaker fails to justify incarceration, for free choice proceeds from the desires of an agent, and the desires of an agent are products of genetics and environmental conditioning, neither of which is controlled by the agent
The claim in the first sentence of the passage plays which one of the following roles in the argument
(A) It is offered as a premise that helps to show that no actions are under the control of the agent
(B) It is offered as background information necessary to understand the argument
(C) It is offered as the main conclusion that the argument is designed to establish
(D) It is offered as evidence for the stated claim that protection of life and property is more important than retribution for past illegal acts
(E) It is offered as evidence for the stated claim that lawbreaking proceeds from either ignorance of the law, or ignorance of the effects of one’s actions, or free choice
answer:C
請問這一題的思路....題目看不太懂!!!
Joseph: My encyclopedia says that the mathematician Pierre de Fermat died in 1665 without leaving behind any written proof for a theorem that he claimed nonetheless to have proved. Probably this alleged theorem simply cannot be proved, since---as the article points out---no one else has been able to prove it. Therefore it is likely that Fermat was either lying or else mistaken when he made his claim.
Laura: Your encyclopedia is out of date. Recently someone has in fact proved Fermat’s theorem. And since the theorem is provable, your claim---that Fermat was lying or mistaken---clearly is wrong.
50. Which one of the following most accurately describes a reasoning error in Laura’s argument?
(A) It purports to establish its conclusion by making a claim that, if true, would actually contradict that conclusion.
(B) It mistakenly assumes that the quality of a person’s character can legitimately be taken to guarantee the accuracy of the claims that person has made.
(C) It mistakes something that is necessary for its conclusion to follow for something that ensures that the conclusion follows.
(D) It uses the term “provable” without defining it.
(E) It fails to distinguish between a true claim that has mistakenly between believed to be false and a false claim that has mistakenly been believed to be true.
answer:C
這題我本來選B...後來看了看覺得是E..沒想到答案卻是C><''

[dibert8]

44. Legal theorist: It is unreasonable to incarcerate anyone for any other reason than that he or she is a serious threat to the property or lives of other people. The breaking of a law does not justify incarceration, for lawbreaking proceeds either from ignorance of the law or of the effects of one’s actions, or from the free choice of the lawbreaker. Obviously mere ignorance cannot justify incarcerating a lawbreaker, and even free choice on the part of the lawbreaker fails to justify incarceration, for free choice proceeds from the desires of an agent, and the desires of an agent are products of genetics and environmental conditioning, neither of which is controlled by the agent
The claim in the first sentence of the passage plays which one of the following roles in the argument
(A) It is offered as a premise that helps to show that no actions are under the control of the agent
(B) It is offered as background information necessary to understand the argument
(C) It is offered as the main conclusion that the argument is designed to establish
(D) It is offered as evidence for the stated claim that protection of life and property is more important than retribution for past illegal acts
(E) It is offered as evidence for the stated claim that lawbreaking proceeds from either ignorance of the law, or ignorance of the effects of one’s actions, or free choice

考閱讀:第一句是主旨句,後面接著說明這一句,所以第一句就是結論.

[dibert8]

Joseph: My encyclopedia says that the mathematician Pierre de Fermat died in 1665 without leaving behind any written proof for a theorem that he claimed nonetheless to have proved. Probably this alleged theorem simply cannot be proved, since---as the article points out---no one else has been able to prove it. Therefore it is likely that Fermat was either lying or else mistaken when he made his claim.
Laura: Your encyclopedia is out of date. Recently someone has in fact proved Fermat’s theorem. And since the theorem is provable, your claim---that Fermat was lying or mistaken---clearly is wrong.
50. Which one of the following most accurately describes a reasoning error in Laura’s argument?
(A) It purports to establish its conclusion by making a claim that, if true, would actually contradict that conclusion.
(B) It mistakenly assumes that the quality of a person’s character can legitimately be taken to guarantee the accuracy of the claims that person has made.
(C) It mistakes something that is necessary for its conclusion to follow for something that ensures that the conclusion follows.
(D) It uses the term “provable” without defining it.
(E) It fails to distinguish between a true claim that has mistakenly between believed to be false and a false claim that has mistakenly been believed to be true.

L: theorem is provable 只是充分條件
如果要說明 Fermat was either lying or else mistaken 還必需要 written proof (必要條件)
i.e. 'theorem is provable' + 'written proof' 證明 a theorem has proved ,才知道 Fermat was either lying (theorem is neither provable nor proved) or else mistaken (theorem is provable yet not proved).

[dianechiu]

想請問一下,
(A)選項的意思是甚麼?
是同因生反果的意思嗎?
謝謝

[dibert8]

(A) 的敘述似乎自相矛盾:意圖以一主張建立結論,但是這個主張與自己建立的結論相衝突.
that conclusion = its conclusion = conclusion of Laura's argument