|
|
Репетитор по вербальной и
математической частям GMAT
(Graduate Management Admissions Test)
I don't just coach students for GMAT, but practically guarantee a high score of your GMAT.
With experienced tutors and very well structured course material, GMAT lessons will give you an assured GMAT high score.
Expert Tutor, English Tutor, Mathematics School, Math School, Math Study Studio.
Successful applicants must be committed to excellence in math education,
must love their job and enjoy their company.
I provide serious teaching.
A Critical Reasoning example:
A researcher discovered that people who have low levels of immune system activity tend to score much lower on tests of mental health than do people with normal or high immune-system activity.
(immunity = mental health)
The researcher concluded from this experiment
that the immune system protects against mental illness as well as against physical disease.
The researcher conclusion (immunity ⇒ mental health)
depends on which of the following assumptions?
(A) High immune-system activity protects against mental illness better
than normal immune-system activity does.
(B) Mental illness is similar to physical disease in its effects on body systems.
(C) People with high immune-system activity cannot develop mental illness.
(D) Mental illness does not cause people's immune-system activity to decrease.
(E) Psychological treatment of mental illness is not as effective as is medical treatment.
Можно подумать, что речь о формальном логическом построении:
Mental illness = mental health,
decrease = immunity,
(D) = - (mental illness ⇒ decrease) = (immunity ⇒ mental health),
но во-первых, это противоречило бы правилам логики:
(immunity ⇒ mental health) = (mental health ⇒ immunity) = (mental illness ⇒ decrease)
(эквивалентность прямого и противоположного высказываний),
а во-вторых, речь не о формальной логике, а о временнóй причинности:
что первично: иммунитет или здоровье?
Если бы болезнь подрывала иммунитет, это одно объясняло бы корреляцию,
и не надо было бы заключать, что иммунитет помогает здоровью. ⇒ D:
предполагалось, что болезнь не подрывает иммунитет. Первичен иммунитет.
При этом можно сделать оба (формально неравносильных) вывода:
(immunity ⇒ mental health) и/или (immunity ⇒ mental health)
- временнáя зависимость!
В этом смысле существует и «обратная» зависимость:
есть mental health ⇒ была immunity
и нет mental health ⇒ не было immunity, т.е.
есть mental illness ⇒ было decrease
⇒ - «значит, была» - т.е. ретрозависимость.
Последнее противоречит отрицанию D:
- D: есть mental illness ⇒ будет decrease
⇒ - «значит, будет» - т.е. обычная временнáя зависимость.
Из яйца следует курица, а из курицы – яйцо. В этом смысле курица эквивалентна яйцу.
Но вопрос: что первично? И в этом смысле уже эквивалентности нет.
Материя первична или сознание? Речи нет о следствии или причине:
материя ⇒ сознание надо воспринимать просто как следование во времени.
This one is about reverse causation. Specifically, the author notes a correlation
between levels of immune system activity and scores on test of mental health,
and then uses the mere correlation to conclude a cause-effect relationship.
Just because milk and cereal are correlated
doesn't mean that one causes the other. :)
Tallness is correlated with basketball.
Playing basketball will make you tall
You play basketball ⇒ most likely, you are tall.
So, the argument concludes that specifically, if you have a good immune system,
then you'll have protection against mental illness.
The reverse causation could be equally true though:
if you have a mental illness, then it could negatively affect your immune system.
Answer D negates this possibility - which is the form
a "reverse causation" assumption is always going to take.
The author must assume that the reverse possibility is NOT the case
in order to assume that his cause-effect conclusion IS the case.
|
