Like most other coastal towns in Norway, the town of Stavanger was quiet
b1 J; e& k# H7 n and peaceful until the early 1960’s, when it became Norway’s center for off- . t& q$ b" Z5 |$ |* Q# j3 G
shore oil exploration. Between then and now, violent crime and vandalism in E9 [/ `7 F6 C
Stavanger have greatly increased. Stavanger’s social problems probably 3 e; e! \; [/ x# ?$ C
resulted from the oil boom, since violent crime and vandalism have remained 7 D" H, a' {3 g' o" P+ C
low in coastal towns in Norway that have had no oil boom. ; L9 K% y' Y+ c3 t' v" a: A2 D5 q
8 u# T* d! p, u/ G% f Which of the following most accurately describes the method of reasoning
: a- U0 B) U4 q( i employed in the argument? ! G L3 Q4 N: T
) E, L; R# d; l, c( J
A Arguing that a circumstance is not a precondition for a phenomenon
* @% t. u( w5 j- c2 i8 y, o5 B on the grounds that the phenomenon sometimes occurs where the 8 u4 h7 g# S9 A
circumstance is not present
y* j7 [& J6 _; E, {; H$ y" S) W0 X B Arguing that a circumstance is a cause of a phenomenon on the $ O" t+ x/ t1 |: Q) M! v1 [# G
grounds that the phenomenon has not occurred where the circum-
3 K' Q/ J* D! U stance is not present + i1 f$ \: Z" Y: ^% u5 C
C Arguing that a particular thing cannot have caused a phenomenon 9 y$ d" r( ]: m' z' N
because that thing was not present before the phenomenon occurred
/ f6 u+ k$ G( U0 U D Attempting to establish a claim by arguing that the denial of the claim is ) v- n$ C* G+ t0 u
inconsistent with the observed facts
D/ Z/ g: y, S! t E Attempting to establish that certain circumstances that would have had
8 o0 O' d4 y; G- c& W to occur for a particular explanation to be correct could not have 7 o2 k! ]- w) ~& y
occurred
5 }% e% @; b6 T- I% C" B9 }1 N: D答案B |
发表于 2012-8-15 12:40:43
