Suppose you go into a fruiterer's shop, wanting an apple - you take up one, and on biting it you find it is sour; you look at it, and see that it is hard and green. You take up another one, and that, too, is hard, green, and sour. The shop man offers you a third; but, before biting it, you examine it, and find that it is hard and green, and you immediately say that you will not have it, as it must be sour, like those that you have already tried.
Nothing can be more simple than that, you think; but if you will take the trouble to analyze and mace out into its logical elements what has been done by the mind, you will be greatly surprised. In the fast place you have performed the operation of induction. You find that, in two experiences, hardness and greenness in apples went together with sourness. It was so in the first case, and it was confirmed by the second. True, it is a very small basis, but still it is enough from which to make an induction; you generalize the facts, and you expect to find spumes in apples where you get hardness and greenness. You found upon that a general law, that all hard and green apples are sour; and that, so far as it goes, is a perfect induction. Well, having got your natural law in this way, when you are offered another apple which you find it hard and green, you say, "all hard and green apples are sour; this apple is hard and green; therefore, this apple is sour." That train of reasoning is what logicians call a syllogism, and has all its various parts and terms - its major premises, its minor premises, and its conclusion. And by the help of further reasoning, which, if drawn out, would have to be exhibited in two or three other syllogisms, you arrive at your final determination, "I will not have that apple." So that, you see, you have, in the first place, established a law by induction, and upon that you have founded a deduction, and reasoned out the special particular case.
Well now, suppose, having got your conclusion of the law, that at some times afterwards, you are discussing the qualities of apple with a friend; you will say to him, "It is a very curious thing, but I find that all hard and green apples are sour!" Your friend says to you, "But how do you know that?" You at once reply, "Oh, because I have tried them over and over again, and have always found them to be so." Well, if we are talking science instead of common sense, we should call that an experimental verification. And, if still opposed, you go further, and say, "I have heard from people, in Somerset shire and Devon shire, where a large number of apples are grown, and in London, where many apples are sold and eaten, that they have observed the same thing." It is also found to be the case in Normandy, and in North America. In short, I find it to be the universal experience of mankind wherever attention has been directed to the subject." Whereupon, your friend, unless he is a very unreasonable man, agrees with you, and is convinced that you are quite right in the conclusion you have drawn. He believes, although perhaps he does not know he believes it, that the more extensive verifications have been made, and results of the same kind arrived at - that the more varied the conditions under which the same results are attained, the more certain is the ultimate conclusion, and he disputes the question no further. He sees that the experiment has been tried under all sorts of conditions, as to time, place, and people, with the same result; and he says with you, therefore, that the law you have laid down must be a good one, and he must believe it.
1. Apples are used_________
A. in order to convince the reader that fruit has no intellect
B. to illustrate the subject of the passage
C. to give color to the story D. to show how foolish logic is
2. The term "natural law" as it appears in the text refers to ________
A. common sense B. the result of an induction
C. the order of nature D. a scientific discovery
3. If you find a hard and green apple that is not sour, you should _________
A. try more apples to see if the natural law has changed
B. eat the rest of the apple at once
C. reject the law stating that hard and green apples are usually sour
D. conduct further investigations and make adjustments to the law of apples as necessary
4. The writer is probably___________
A. French B. English C. American D. None of the above
核心词汇注释
fruiterer n.水果商贩
trace n.痕迹,踪迹,迹线;微量 缰绳
vt.描绘,映描,画轮廓;追踪,回溯, 探索
vi.上溯,沿路走
induction n.感应,感应现象;归纳
generalize vt.归纳,概括; 推广,普及
spume n.泡沫 v.(使)起泡沫
1ogician n.逻辑学家
syllogism n.[逻]三段论法,推论法,演绎
premise n.[逻Ⅱ法]前提,(企业,机构等使用的)房屋连地基
vt.提论,预述,假定 vi.作出前提
deduction n.减除,扣除, 减除额;推论,演绎
verification n.验证,确 认,查证,作证;[律]诉状结尾的举证声明
长难句剖析
Well,having got your natural law in this way,when you are offered another apple which you find it hard and green,you say,“All hard and green apples are sour;this apple is hard and green;therefore,this apple is sour. “
[结构分析]本句主干是you say,引号中的句子是直接引语,作say的宾语。现在分词having...way作伴随状语:when引导时间状语:another apple后面是由which引导的定语从句。
[参考译文]那么,你既已经通过这种方式得到了一条自然规律,如果再有人给你苹果,而你发现它又硬又绿,你就会说:“所有既硬又绿的苹果都是酸的,这个苹果又硬又绿,所以它是酸的。”
And,by the help of further reasoning,which,if drawn out,would have to be
exhibited in two or three other syllogisms,you arrive at your final determination.
[结构分析]本句主干是you arrive at your final determination。介词by引导的短语作方式状语,further reasoning后面的which引导非限定性定语从句,if drawn out作定语从句中的条件状语,省略主语。
[参考译文]通过进一步推理的帮助(如果把这部分推理分开来,大家就会看到它又是两三个三段论推理),你作出了最终的决定。
I have heard from people,in Somerset shire and Devon shire,where a large number of apples are grown,and in London,where many apples are sold and eaten,that they have observed the same thing.
[结构分析]本句主干是I have heard from people.…that...。in…shire…and in London作地点状语。这两个地点状语都是由where引导的非限定性定语从句修饰,另外上句谓语动词的宾语是一个that从句。
[参考译文]我听别人说过,在苹果广泛种植的Somerset和Devon郡以及在苹果销量和消费量都很大的伦敦,他们都发现了同样的规律。
全文参考译文
假设你进入一家水果店,想要买苹果。你尝了第一个,发现它是酸的,你看了看它,发现它又青又硬。你又拿起了另一个,发现它也是又青又硬又酸。店主又给你拿来了第三个,而你在咬它之前先仔细观察了一下,发现它又硬又青,于是你立刻说你不要了,因为你认定它是酸的,和你刚才尝的那几个一样。
你认为这再简单不过了,不过当你不怕麻烦深入分析和探索你的大脑作出这样的反应的逻辑因素时,你就会大吃一惊。首先,你进行了归纳。你发现,在前两个事例中,苹果的“硬”和“青”这两个特征都是和“酸”同时出现的。在第一个例子里是如此,而这又被第二个例子所证实了。当然,这是一个很弱的基础条件,但是从中做出一个归纳已经足够了。你归纳了这些事实,并设想在具有“硬”和“青”这两个特性的苹果身上就具有“酸”这个性质。你就发现了一条普遍规律:所有又硬又青的苹果都是酸的。并且到目前为止,这还是个完美的结论。那么,你既已经通过这种方式得到了一条自然规律,如果再有人给你苹果,而你发现它又硬又青,你就会说:“所有既硬又青的苹果都是酸的,这个苹果又硬又青,所以它是酸的。”这种推理链在逻辑学中叫做三段论法,并有它独特的结构和术语——它的大前提、小前提和结论。那么,通过进一步推理的帮助(如果把这部分推理分开来,大家就会看到它又是两三个三段论推理),你做出了最终的决定:“我不要那个苹果。”因此你首先通过归纳建立了一条规律,然后在这条规律的基础上进行演绎,推出某个特定情况。
假如现在你已经总结出了规律,当以后某个时间你正在和你的一个朋友讨论苹果的质量的时候,你会对他说,“有件事情很有趣,我发现所有又硬又青的苹果都是酸的。”你的朋友对你说,“可你是怎么知道的?”你马上回答说:“哦,因为我已经品尝了很多次,我们应该说这是一个经实验证实的结论。”而且如果你的朋友仍旧不同意,你可以进一步这样说“我听别人说过,在苹果广泛种植的Somerset和Devon郡以及在苹果销量和消费量都很大的伦敦,他们都发现了同样的规律。在诺曼底和北美也是如此。总之,我发现几乎所有关心这个问题的地方人们都发现了这条规律。”
因此,只要你的朋友不是一个非常不讲道理的人,他就会赞成你的观点,而且会相信你所得到的结论是正确的。尽管也许他自己都不知道他相信,他相信经过越广泛的验证,就会得到越多相同的结论——得到相同的结论的环境越多样化,最终的结论就越确定,而且他也不会再争论这个问题。他发觉实验在所有条件下都得到了验证。虽然是不同的时间、不同的地点、有不同的人,但都出现同样的结果:所以他会和你一样认为,你所断言的规律一定是一条正确的规律,他必须相信。
题目答案与解析
1.举出苹果的例子是_________。 [答案]B
A.为了使读者确信苹果是没有智力的 B.用来解释文章的主题
C.为了给故事增加一些色彩 D.为了显示逻辑是多么愚蠢
[解析]本题表面上问的是吃苹果这一例子,实际上问的是文章的主要内容。从文中内
容可知,通过吃苹果的事例讲解了逻辑上的归纳法和演绎法。因此B项为正确答案。
2.在文章中出现的术语“自然法则”与________有关。 [答案]B
A.常识 B.归纳的结果 C.自然的秩序 D.科学的发现
[解析]本题可参照第2段中间的一句话Well,having got your natural law in this way, when…。而这一句前面有这样一句话:True,it is a very small basis,but still it is enough from which to make an induction。从中可知B项为正确答案,即the result of an induction。
3.如果你发现一个又硬又青的苹果不是酸的时,你应该_________。 [答案]D
A.尝试更多的苹果,看看自然法则是否发生了改变
B.立即吃掉其余的苹果
C.抛弃又硬又青的苹果是酸的这条法则
D.进行深入调查,对苹果法则做出必要的调整
[解析]本题的目的是让读者理解上下文,搞清演绎法的含义。四个选项中B和C明显错误。D项比A项更为全面,因此D项是正确答案。
4.作者也许是________。 [答案]B
A.法国人 B.英国人 C.美国人 D.以上都不是
[解析]本题可参照文章倒数第2段。从中可知作者引用了地名Somerset shire and Devon
shire,London,Normandy和North America,由此可以看出作者是英国人。因此B项为正确答案。
送福利啦
1)微信搜索公众号:淘园日记2)回复【1】领取大额淘宝优惠券
3)回复【2】领取晨光文具优惠券
微信识别二维码
注意:本文归作者所有,未经作者允许,不得转载