聽說這道題目也是蠻有爭(zhēng)議的，所以我也就先看了看。果然是看渾掉了，真搞不清楚里面是什么邏輯。和一個(gè)同學(xué)討論了一下，發(fā)現(xiàn)僅在作者論證思路的理解上就和她有巨大的分歧。我的觀點(diǎn)被認(rèn)為是一派胡言，我自己也覺得有點(diǎn)變態(tài)，但總還有種強(qiáng)烈的力量讓我相信我的判斷。事實(shí)上，分歧本來就是有可能的。既然這 Argument題目里面本來就是邏輯有問題的，那理解它的時(shí)候也得帶著錯(cuò)誤的邏輯去理解。如果帶著不同的錯(cuò)誤邏輯去理解，很有可能最終對(duì)它的論證思路都產(chǎn)生分歧。不知道ETS是否同意這一點(diǎn)。
我對(duì)此題的理解。作者是想說：recent study中那些socially active的人比不active的感冒少，是因?yàn)樗麄僫mmune system更強(qiáng)，所以“要想不感冒，就要多社交”。有人應(yīng)該會(huì)覺得不解：從 The researchers note that……一直到successfully fight off some new viruses這一大段講immunity的東西到底是干什么的？其實(shí)這段話就是為了說明那些socially active的人immunity更強(qiáng)。它是想說，光是通過得一次感冒獲得的immunity是沒啥用的：專一而又暫時(shí)。However，那些社交廣泛的同學(xué)總是有機(jī)會(huì)接觸到 a variety kinds of cold viruses的（這是作者的潛臺(tái)詞），那么他們居然還感冒那么少，看起來這種immunity不是靠一次感冒獲得的單一而臨時(shí)的那種，而是因?yàn)樗麄冇斜容^strong的immune system（這就是 Merely being exposed to……fight off some new viruses想說明的）。這里其實(shí)就是我給作者套上了一種邏輯錯(cuò)誤：confuse an argument with an explanation。
這段話是以前pooh貼的一篇logic and fallacies的文章里的一段話，描述的就是這種錯(cuò)誤：
An argument is also not the same as an explanation. Suppose that you are trying to argue that Albert Einstein believed in God, and say:
"Einstein made his famous statement 'God does not play dice' because of his belief in God."
That may look like a relevant argument, but it’s not; it's an explanation of Einstein's statement. To see this, remember that a statement of the form "X because Y" can be re-phrased as an equivalent statement, of the form "Y therefore X." Doing so gives us:
"Einstein believed in God, therefore he made his famous statement 'God does not play dice’.
Now it’s clear that the statement, which looked like an argument, is actually assuming the result which it is supposed to be proving, in order to explain the Einstein quote.
我對(duì)此題的理解。作者是想說：recent study中那些socially active的人比不active的感冒少，是因?yàn)樗麄僫mmune system更強(qiáng)，所以“要想不感冒，就要多社交”。有人應(yīng)該會(huì)覺得不解：從 The researchers note that……一直到successfully fight off some new viruses這一大段講immunity的東西到底是干什么的？其實(shí)這段話就是為了說明那些socially active的人immunity更強(qiáng)。它是想說，光是通過得一次感冒獲得的immunity是沒啥用的：專一而又暫時(shí)。However，那些社交廣泛的同學(xué)總是有機(jī)會(huì)接觸到 a variety kinds of cold viruses的（這是作者的潛臺(tái)詞），那么他們居然還感冒那么少，看起來這種immunity不是靠一次感冒獲得的單一而臨時(shí)的那種，而是因?yàn)樗麄冇斜容^strong的immune system（這就是 Merely being exposed to……fight off some new viruses想說明的）。這里其實(shí)就是我給作者套上了一種邏輯錯(cuò)誤：confuse an argument with an explanation。
這段話是以前pooh貼的一篇logic and fallacies的文章里的一段話，描述的就是這種錯(cuò)誤：
An argument is also not the same as an explanation. Suppose that you are trying to argue that Albert Einstein believed in God, and say:
"Einstein made his famous statement 'God does not play dice' because of his belief in God."
That may look like a relevant argument, but it’s not; it's an explanation of Einstein's statement. To see this, remember that a statement of the form "X because Y" can be re-phrased as an equivalent statement, of the form "Y therefore X." Doing so gives us:
"Einstein believed in God, therefore he made his famous statement 'God does not play dice’.
Now it’s clear that the statement, which looked like an argument, is actually assuming the result which it is supposed to be proving, in order to explain the Einstein quote.