Like most other coastal towns in Norway, the town of Stavanger was quiet - T. p$ z! J+ `7 k
and peaceful until the early 1960’s, when it became Norway’s center for off- ) y, C- F5 n ?' |- T5 A, ^ Q7 p
shore oil exploration. Between then and now, violent crime and vandalism in ) Q4 C6 v( I3 Y: A/ ]
Stavanger have greatly increased. Stavanger’s social problems probably
5 R x; G: R8 b1 M9 c0 t resulted from the oil boom, since violent crime and vandalism have remained * e! _! t3 ]2 D9 B3 `7 `
low in coastal towns in Norway that have had no oil boom.
0 |2 W0 J8 w+ |. t1 | ' P/ a/ i9 N! ^9 L b7 R
Which of the following most accurately describes the method of reasoning
; Y: ^" s: h: ~1 W9 K employed in the argument? " K" x1 M! r* p1 x
+ K5 q1 i2 e" H2 c$ n* N A Arguing that a circumstance is not a precondition for a phenomenon ' C. y1 Z5 Q% I* ^3 ~
on the grounds that the phenomenon sometimes occurs where the
1 I3 s/ f: O3 a( n) Q circumstance is not present ' I! w. ]4 I. J. N. b1 d
B Arguing that a circumstance is a cause of a phenomenon on the $ d0 a% _$ u; T2 w
grounds that the phenomenon has not occurred where the circum- ! i+ D, x/ ] y8 I2 A1 w
stance is not present
$ v5 d+ h/ k8 i: N. W& Q+ N5 p- M C Arguing that a particular thing cannot have caused a phenomenon
- p; I1 \- s' v) m3 D$ b because that thing was not present before the phenomenon occurred * j4 W6 s" V3 B; Z8 N- F" C6 v
D Attempting to establish a claim by arguing that the denial of the claim is ) G! s; r$ M& z+ r0 o3 V0 m
inconsistent with the observed facts
+ k7 @* y: O! v. q1 y E Attempting to establish that certain circumstances that would have had ' C9 I2 ^# A* V" Q& c p
to occur for a particular explanation to be correct could not have
3 c' z; V6 g, z7 D7 W occurred 9 ?) @9 G+ V& e# D5 W" E0 R
答案B |