fei fei #131

[ustoday]

131. To become an expert on a musical instrument, a person must practice. If a person practice a musical instrument for three hours each day, they will eventually become expert on that instrument. Therefore, if a person is an expert on a musical instrument, that person must have practiced for at least three hours each day.

Which one of the following most accurately describes a flaw in the reasoning above?

A. The conclusion fails to take into account that people who practice for three hours every day might not yet have reached a degree of proficiency that everyone would consider expert.
B. The conclusion fails to take into account that practicing for less than three hours each day may be enough for some people to become experts.
C. the conclusion fails to take into account that if a person has not practiced for at least three hours a day, the person has not become an expert.
D. The conclusion fails to take into account that three consecutive hours of daily practice is not recommended by all music teachers.
E. The conclusion fails to take into account that few people have the spare time necessary to devote three hours daily to practice.

--------------------
key : B

想要請問A為啥不對

[Pufa]

這題的前半句只是一個眾所皆知的規則，不是作者的reasoning：
To become an expert on a musical instrument, a person must practice. If a person practice a musical instrument for three hours each day, they will eventually become expert on that instrument.

這題的結論在最後一句：
Therefore, if a person is an expert on a musical instrument, that person must have practiced for at least three hours each day.

A等於是要去找那個規則的碴，這不是題目要問的！
更何況，題目裡並沒有說沒練滿三小時的人不會變成專家！！
B才是從作者的推論裡找漏洞。

[ustoday]

對喔
謝謝pufa