大全section03,18

[freshmanduke]

18. Teresa: Manned spaceflight does not have a future, since it cannot compete economically with other means of accomplishing the objectives of spaceflight.
Edward: No mode of human transportation has a better record of reliability: two accidents in twenty-five years. Thus manned spaceflight definitely has a positive future.
Which of the following is the best logical evaluation of Edward’s argument as a response to Teresa’s argument?
(A) It cites evidence that, if true, tends to disprove the evidence cited by Teresa in drawing her conclusion.
(B) It indicates a logical gap in the support that Teresa offers for her conclusion.
(C) It raises a consideration that outweighs the argument Teresa makes.
(D) It does not meet Teresa’s point because it assumes that there is no serious impediment to transporting people into space, but this was the issue raised by Teresa.
(E) It fails to respond to Teresa’s argument because it does not address the fundamental issue of whether space activities should have priority over other claims on the national budget.

答案是D
本來刪到D&E 最後選D
不過不太懂題意 想請問大家的意見
謝謝

[liwuu]

Teresa以經濟觀點來看,但Edward提出反駁的觀點卻在於安全性
所以如同D所述,並沒有meet Teresa's point

[freshmanduke]

to liwuu:
D的後一句 but this was the issue raised by Teresa.
我是覺得這裡怪怪的
想請問怎麼解釋

[Behemoth]

但這是被teresa所提出的議題

[freshmanduke]

若是被teresa所提出的議題
不就是說there is no serious impediment to transporting people into space
是teresa提出
這樣一來
邏輯不就很怪嗎?

[Pudding]

It does not meet Teresa’s point because it assumes that there is no serious impediment to transporting people into space, but this was the issue raised by Teresa.

D的意思是說Edward假設太空運輸方式是沒有什麼障礙的, 而Teresa正認為有障礙...只是如五指所說前者所謂障礙是指安全性, 後者所說障礙則是經濟考量; 兩者從不同角度出發的出相反結論...

所謂issue應該指的是到底有沒有impediment這件事....

繼續討論...

[cheyen]

Teresa以經濟觀點來看,但Edward提出反駁的觀點卻在於安全性
所以如同D所述,並沒有meet Teresa's point

小弟稍微簡述一下:
Teresa以經濟觀點來看，說Manned spaceflight 沒有未來
Edward以安全考量來看，說Manned spaceflight 有未來

我選了
(A) It cites evidence that, if true, tends to disprove the evidence cited by Teresa in drawing her conclusion
不是說以Edward以安全考量來看的証据是真的，偏向於不贊同Teresa的結論(Manned spaceflight 沒有未來)
請問我這樣的思路哪邊有錯有瑕疵呢?
麻煩大家開釋一下 謝謝唷

[coulomb]

我選了
(A) It cites evidence that, if true, tends to disprove the evidence cited by Teresa in drawing her conclusion
不是說以Edward以安全考量來看的証据是真的，偏向於不贊同Teresa的結論(Manned spaceflight 沒有未來)
請問我這樣的思路哪邊有錯有瑕疵呢?
麻煩大家開釋一下 謝謝唷

[/quote]

一個贊成一個反對
可是贊成跟反對的切入點完全不同
E的結論跟T的結論相反
可是E的論點並沒有disprove T的論點
所以A不對

請指教～

[dibert8]

題目乍看之下這兩個人是雞同鴨講:一個說載人太空飛行經濟效益不彰,另一個說安全可靠度,我選 (C):安全比錢重要,但是不載人不是更安全,這就是選不到答案的無奈!
看了答案,開始無法想像,不是說不要想超過題目所提的範圍嗎?怎麼答案會扯到太空飛行的阻礙.兩個人都沒有提到"阻礙"啊!如果有,也是Teresa的經濟效益不彰可以講的過去,怎麼說Teresa主張"no serious impediment to transporting people"

原來選錯是看不懂英文!

(D) it = Edward 的主張 = "no serious impediment to transporting people"; the issue raised by Teresa 應該理解為 "impediment to transporting people" i.e. 把形容詞去掉 (形容詞代表意見,原來老美的 issue 是不帶意見的)

(A) 雞同鴨講, evidence 不會擊中要害
(B) 雞同鴨講,不會有gap
(C) 安全比錢重要,但是不載人不是更安全?
(E) other claims 指所有預算,本題只講 spaceflight ,範圍過大.