听说这道题目也是蛮有争议的，所以我也就先看了看。果然是看浑掉了，真搞不清楚里面是什么逻辑。和一个同学讨论了一下，发现仅在作者论证思路的理解上就和她有巨大的分歧。我的观点被认为是一派胡言，我自己也觉得有点变态，但总还有种强烈的力量让我相信我的判断。事实上，分歧本来就是有可能的。既然这Argument题目里面本来就是逻辑有问题的，那理解它的时候也得带着错误的逻辑去理解。如果带着不同的错误逻辑去理解，很有可能最终对它的论证思路都产生分歧。不知道ETS是否同意这一点。[b][b] 我对此题的理解。作者是想说：recent study中那些socially active的人比不active的感冒少，是因为他们immune system更强，所以“要想不感冒，就要多社交”。有人应该会觉得不解：从The researchers note that...一直到successfully fight off some new viruses这一大段讲immunity的东西到底是干什么的？其实这段话就是为了说明那些socially active的人immunity更强。它是想说，光是通过得一次感冒获得的immunity是没啥用的：专一而又暂时。However，那些社交广泛的同学总是有机会接触到a variety kinds of cold viruses的（这是作者的潜台词），那么他们居然还感冒那么少，看起来这种immunity不是靠一次感冒获得的单一而临时的那种，而是因为他们有比较strong的immune system（这就是Merely being exposed to...fight off some new viruses想说明的）。这里其实就是我给作者套上了一种逻辑错误：confuse an argument with an explanation。[b]这段话是以前pooh贴的一篇logic and fallacies的文章里的一段话，描述的就是这种错误：[b][b] 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:[b]"Einstein made his famous statement 'God does not play dice' because of his belief in God."[b]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:[b]"Einstein believed in God, therefore he made his famous statement 'God does not play dice'.[b]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. [b]