📚 High-Frequency Topics and Common Mistakes in Year 12 WJEC Philosophy | Year 12 WJEC 哲学：高频考点与易错题分析
The WJEC AS Philosophy course builds a rigorous foundation in some of the most enduring questions in Western thought. Year 12 students engage with epistemology, philosophy of religion and the philosophy of mind, learning to analyse arguments, identify fallacies and construct evaluative essays. This article distils the high-frequency topics that appear most consistently in past papers, alongside the common mistakes that can cost marks. Understanding these patterns will sharpen your revision and boost your confidence in the exam.
WJEC AS 哲学课程为西方思想中一些最经久不衰的问题奠定了严谨的基础。Year 12 的学生需要学习认识论、宗教哲学和心灵哲学，学会分析论证、识别谬误并构建评估性文章。本文提炼了历年真题中最常出现的高频考点，以及容易导致失分的常见错误。掌握这些规律将让你的复习更高效，并提升应试信心。
1. The Tripartite Definition of Knowledge: JTB and Gettier | 知识的三要素定义：JTB 与盖梯尔
Most WJEC papers begin with an analysis of knowledge. You must be able to explain the traditional tripartite definition – knowledge as justified true belief (JTB). This means S knows that p if and only if p is true, S believes that p, and S is justified in believing that p. The Gettier problem is an essential counterpoint. Gettier cases show that one can have a justified true belief that is still not knowledge because the justification is disconnected from the truth in a 'lucky' way. For example, Smith believes ‘the man who will get the job has ten coins in his pocket’ based on strong evidence about Jones, but Smith himself gets the job and, unbeknownst to him, also has ten coins. His belief is justified and true, but it is not knowledge.
大多数 WJEC 试卷都以知识分析开篇。你必须能够解释传统的三要素定义——知识作为被证成的真信念（JTB）。这意味着 S 知道 p，当且仅当 p 为真，S 相信 p，并且 S 有理由相信 p。盖梯尔问题是一个重要的对立面。盖梯尔案例表明，一个人可以拥有一个被证成的真信念，但该信念仍然不是知识，因为证成与真理之间存在一种‘侥幸’的脱节。例如，史密斯基于关于琼斯的充分证据而相信‘那个会得到工作的人口袋里有十枚硬币’，但结果是史密斯自己得到了工作，且他本人不知不觉中也有十枚硬币。他的信念是证成的且为真，但这并非知识。
Students often mistake the Gettier challenge as a rejection of the necessity of justification. A common error is to claim that Gettier proves JTB is entirely wrong or that knowledge requires certainty. In truth, the Gettier problem shows that JTB is not sufficient for knowledge; it does not show that J, T, or B are unnecessary. Be precise: the condition of justification remains necessary, but an extra condition – such as a no-false-lemma condition or reliable causal connection – is required to rule out luck.
学生经常误以为盖梯尔挑战是在拒绝证成的必要性。一个常见的错误是声称盖梯尔证明了 JTB 完全是错的，或者知识需要确定性。实际上，盖梯尔问题表明 JTB 对于知识来说不是充分的；它并不表明 J、T 或 B 是不必要的。要精确：证成的条件仍然是必要的，但需要一个额外的条件——例如无反例引理条件或可靠的因果联系——来排除运气成分。
2. Direct Realism about Perception: Strengths and the Argument from Illusion | 知觉的直接实在论：优势与幻觉论证
Direct realism claims that we perceive physical objects and their properties directly, without the mediation of sense-data. Its main strength is that it aligns with common sense: when I look at a tree, I am directly aware of the tree itself, not a mental image. However, the argument from illusion is a vital criticism. This argument points out that in cases of illusion (e.g., a straight stick appearing bent in water), we see something that is not actually a property of the object. The direct realist must explain away these appearances without abandoning the claim that perception is direct.
直接实在论声称我们直接感知物理对象及其属性，无需感觉材料的中介。它的主要优势在于符合常识：当我看一棵树时，我直接觉察到树本身，而不是一个心理图像。然而，幻觉论证是一个重要的批评。该论证指出，在出现幻觉的情况下（例如，一根直棍在水中看起来是弯的），我们看见了实际上并不属于该对象属性的东西。直接实在论者必须在不出卖‘知觉是直接的’这一主张的前提下，消解这些表象。
One typical exam mistake is to confuse the argument from illusion with the argument from hallucination. The argument from illusion relies on cases where there is still an object being perceived, but its appearance differs from reality. The argument from hallucination involves cases where no physical object is present at all (e.g., Macbeth's dagger). The direct realist can reply to illusion by appealing to relational properties or the conditions of perception, but hallucinations pose a stronger threat because there is no object to be directly aware of. Make sure you can distinguish these two arguments clearly.
一个典型的考试错误是将幻觉论证与幻常论证相混淆。幻觉论证依赖于仍然有一个对象被感知但其外观不同于现实的情况。幻常论证则涉及根本没有物理对象存在的情况（例如，麦克白的匕首）。直接实在论者可以通过诉诸关系属性或知觉条件来回应幻觉，但幻常论带来的威胁更大，因为那里根本没有可以让我们直接觉察的对象。务必确保你能够清楚地区分这两个论证。
3. Indirect Realism: Locke's Primary/Secondary Qualities | 间接实在论：洛克的第一性质与第二性质
Indirect realism holds that we perceive physical objects indirectly, by means of sense-data. John Locke's distinction between primary and secondary qualities is fundamental here. Primary qualities—such as solidity, extension, figure and motion—are mind-independent properties that inhere in objects themselves. Secondary qualities—such as colour, taste, sound and smell—are powers of objects to produce sensations in us, and do not resemble the qualities as we experience them. For Locke, the world as it is in itself is a world of particles with primary qualities only.
间接实在论认为，我们通过感觉材料间接地感知物理对象。约翰·洛克对第一性质和第二性质的区分在这里是根本性的。第一性质——例如固态性、广延、形状和运动——是独立于心智的、内在于对象自身的性质。第二性质——例如颜色、味道、声音和气味——是对象在我们心中产生感觉的能力，它们并不像我们经验到的那般相似于对象自身。在洛克看来，世界本身就是只具有第一性质的粒子世界。
A frequent exam pitfall is to assert that Locke thinks we perceive primary qualities directly while we perceive secondary qualities indirectly. This is a misreading. For Locke, we perceive both types of quality indirectly, via ideas. The difference is that ideas of primary qualities resemble the properties themselves, whereas ideas of secondary qualities do not. Another common error is to claim that science has disproved Lockean primary qualities. Modern physics shows that even properties like solidity and extension may not be fundamental in the way Locke thought, but this does not automatically refute indirect realism; it simply requires a more nuanced account of which properties are mind-independent.
一个常见的考试陷阱是断言洛克认为我们直接感知第一性质而间接感知第二性质。这是一种误读。对于洛克来说，我们通过观念间接地感知这两种性质。区别在于，第一性质的观念与性质本身相似，而第二性质的观念则不然。另一个常见错误是声称科学已经否定了洛克式的第一性质。现代物理学表明，即使像固态性和广延这样的性质也可能不是洛克所认为的那种基础性质，但这并不自动驳倒间接实在论；它只是要求我们对哪些性质是独立于心灵的问题做出更细致的说明。
4. Rationalism's Innate Ideas: Descartes' Trademark Argument | 理性主义的天赋观念：笛卡尔的商标论证
Rationalism asserts that the mind possesses certain innate ideas that are not derived from experience. Descartes' trademark argument for the existence of God is a key example. Descartes argues that he has within himself the idea of a perfect, infinite and supremely intelligent being. Being finite and imperfect himself, he could not have been the cause of such an idea; only a being who actually possesses those perfections could cause it. Therefore, God must exist as the only adequate cause of this innate idea.
理性主义断言，心灵拥有某些不来源于经验的天赋观念。笛卡尔关于上帝存在的商标论证是一个关键例子。笛卡尔论证说，他心中有一个关于完美的、无限的和至高至上的存在的观念。因为他自己是有限和不完美的，他不可能是这一观念的原因；只有某个确实拥有那些完美性质的存在者才能引起它。因此，上帝必须存在，作为这一天赋观念的唯一充分原因。
Students often misrepresent the causal principle at work here. Descartes does not simply claim ‘the idea of God is special, therefore God exists.’ He relies on the principle that the cause must have at least as much reality as the effect, and an idea of the infinite requires an infinite cause. An easy mistake is to equate the trademark argument with Anselm's ontological argument. Remember: the trademark argument is causal and a posteriori in structure, moving from an idea in the mind to its cause; the ontological argument is a priori, deducing existence from the concept of God alone. Keep them firmly distinct.
学生经常错误表述这里运用的因果性原则。笛卡尔并不仅仅声称‘上帝的观念是特别的，因此上帝存在’。他依赖于这样一个原则：原因必须至少具有与其结果同等的实在性，而关于无限者的观念需要一个无限的原因。一个容易犯的错误是将商标论证与安瑟尔谟的本体论论证等同起来。记住：商标论证在结构上是因果性的、后天的，从心灵中的观念推向其原因；而本体论论证是先天的，仅从上帝的概念推出其存在。要将它们坚决区分开来。
5. Empiricism's Tabula Rasa: Locke's Critique of Innate Ideas | 经验主义的白板说：洛克对天赋观念的批判
In opposition to rationalism, John Locke offers a sustained critique of innate ideas, arguing that the mind at birth is a tabula rasa—a blank slate. All knowledge derives from experience. Locke attacks the argument from universal consent: if there were innate principles, everyone would assent to them, but children and 'idiots' do not. He also argues that even if something is universally assented to, it could be explained through experience rather than innateness. For Locke, simple ideas come from sensation and reflection, and complex ideas are constructed by the mind from these simples.
与理性主义相对，约翰·洛克对天赋观念进行了持续的批判，认为心灵在出生时是一块 tabula rasa（白板）。所有知识都来源于经验。洛克攻击了所谓普遍同意的论证：如果存在天赋原则，那么每个人都会同意它们，但儿童和‘白痴’却不会。他还论证说，即使某事物被普遍同意，也可以通过经验而不是天赋来加以解释。在洛克看来，简单观念来自感觉和反省，复合观念则是由心灵从这些简单观念中构造出来的。
A mistake frequently seen in exams is to present Locke's own position as if he denies any innate capacities. Locke accepts that we have innate faculties, such as the ability to perceive, remember and abstract. He only denies that we have innate ideas. Another error is to claim that Locke entirely dismisses the role of reason. He acknowledges that reason is necessary to work on the materials provided by experience. Distinguish carefully between innate ideas and innate capacities.
考试中常见的一个错误是，将洛克自己的立场表述为好像他否认任何天赋能力。洛克承认我们拥有天赋的官能，比如感知、记忆和抽象的能力。他只是否认我们拥有天赋观念。另一个错误是声称洛克完全否定了理性的作用。他承认，理性对于加工经验所提供的材料是必要的。要仔细区分天赋观念与天赋能力。
6. The Design Argument: Paley's Watch Analogy and Hume's Criticisms | 设计论证：佩利的钟表类比与休谟的批评
William Paley's design argument, presented through the famous watch analogy, is a staple of the AS specification. Paley argues that if we found a watch on a heath, its complexity and purposefulness would compel us to infer a watchmaker. Similarly, the far greater complexity and purposefulness of the natural world compel us to infer an intelligent designer—God. The argument is analogical and inductive, drawing on the apparent design in biological structures.
威廉·佩利的设计论证，通过著名的钟表类比呈现，是 AS 考纲中的常考内容。佩利论证说，如果我们在荒野中发现一只钟表，其复杂性和目的性将迫使我们推断出一位钟表匠。同样，自然世界远为复杂和具有目的性的结构，迫使我们推断出一位智能的设计者——上帝。该论证是类比性和归纳性的，依赖于生物结构中显现的设计特征。
David Hume's criticisms, formulated before Paley but designed to counter arguments of this type, appear in almost every exam. The key criticisms are: (1) the analogy between the universe and a machine is weak because the universe is more like a living organism than a watch; (2) even if we accept the analogy, the designer may not be the God of classical theism—it could be a team of gods, an apprentice deity, or an imperfect craftsman; (3) the presence of evil and imperfection in the world suggests a flawed or limited designer, not a perfect one. A common student error is to treat Hume's criticisms as outright refutations. They are not; they lower the probability of the theistic conclusion but do not logically disprove it.
大卫·休谟的批评虽然在佩利之前就已成型，但却是为此类论证量身定做的，几乎每场考试都会出现。关键的批评有：（1）宇宙与机器之间的类比是弱的，因为宇宙更像一个活的有机体而非钟表；（2）即使我们接受该类比，设计者也可能不是古典有神论的上帝——它可能是一组神、一个学徒神或一个有缺陷的工匠；（3）世界上存在的恶与不完美暗示了一个有缺陷或有限的设计者，而非完美的上帝。学生常犯的一个错误是将休谟的批评当作彻底的驳斥。它们并非如此；它们降低了有神论结论的概率，但并没有在逻辑上反驳它。
7. The Cosmological Argument: Aquinas' First Three Ways and Fallacies | 宇宙论论证：阿奎那的前三种方式与谬误
Aquinas' cosmological argument, especially the first three of the Five Ways, is a high-frequency area. The First Way (motion) argues that change requires a first mover; the Second Way (causation) argues for a first efficient cause to avoid infinite regress; the Third Way (contingency) argues that because contingent beings exist, a necessary being must exist to explain why there is something rather than nothing. These arguments rely heavily on the impossibility of an infinite regress in an essentially ordered series.
阿奎那的宇宙论论证，尤其是五路中的前三种方式，是高频考点。第一路（运动）论证变化需要一个第一推动者；第二路（因果）论证需要一个第一动力因以避免无限回溯；第三路（偶然性）论证因为偶然存在者存在，必然有一个必然存在者来解释为什么有物存在而非无物存在。这些论证强依赖于在一个本质上有序的序列中无限回溯是不可能的主张。
Students often trip up by confusing an essentially ordered series with an accidentally ordered series. An essentially ordered series (like a hand moving a stick moving a stone) requires all members to be acting simultaneously and dependently; if the first mover ceases, the whole chain stops. An accidentally ordered series (like a father begetting a son) can extend infinitely in principle because later members do not depend on the continued existence of earlier ones. Aquinas only rules out infinite regress in essentially ordered series. Another mistake is to misunderstand the Third Way as simply ‘everything has a cause’. The Third Way does not claim that everything has a cause; it argues from the existence of contingent beings that a necessary being is required. Criticisms by Hume and Russell—such as the fallacy of composition (assuming the whole universe needs a cause because its parts do)—must be explained accurately, not just named.
学生经常因混淆本质上有序的序列与偶然有序的序列而犯错。本质上有序的序列（如手移动棍子，棍子移动石头）要求所有成员同时行动且互相依赖；如果第一推动者停止，整个链条就停止。偶然有序的序列（如父亲生下儿子）原则上可以无限延伸，因为后面的成员不依赖于前面成员的持续存在。阿奎那只排除了在本质上有序的序列中的无限回溯。另一个错误是将第三路简单理解为‘万物皆有因’。第三路并不声称万物皆有因；它是从偶然存在者的存在出发得出必须有一个必然存在者。休谟和罗素的批评——如组合谬误（因为部分需要原因而假定整个宇宙需要原因）——必须被准确解释，而不仅仅是提及名称。
8. The Problem of Evil: Logical and Evidential Problems, and the Free Will Defence | 恶的问题：逻辑与证据性问题及自由意志辩护
The problem of evil is standardly divided into the logical problem (the alleged inconsistency between the existence of a wholly good, omnipotent God and the existence of any evil) and the evidential problem (the sheer amount and distribution of evil makes God's existence unlikely). J. L. Mackie formulated the logical problem forcefully, but Alvin Plantinga's free will defence is widely taught as a response to it. Plantinga argues that it is possible that a wholly good God could not create a world containing moral good without also allowing moral evil, because free creatures might misuse their freedom.
恶的问题通常被划分为逻辑问题（一个全善、全能的上帝的存在与任何恶的存在之间存在所谓的矛盾）和证据性问题（恶的数量和分布之大使得上帝的存在不可能）。J. L. 麦基有力地表述了逻辑问题，但阿尔文·普兰丁格的自由意志辩护被广泛教授为对其的回应。普兰丁格论证说，一个全善的上帝有可能无法创造一个包含道德善的世界而不允许道德恶，因为自由的受造物可能会滥用其自由。
A common mistake is to present the free will defence as a theodicy that claims to explain why God actually allows evil. Plantinga's defence is logical, not a theodicy; it only aims to show that the existence of God and evil is not logically contradictory. It does not claim to provide God's actual reasons. Students also confuse the free will defence with a simple appeal to the value of free will, ignoring that Plantinga adds the condition of transworld depravity—the idea that every possible free creature might sin in at least one world—to block the claim that God could have created a world where everyone freely always does right. Another error is to think that the free will defence addresses the evidential problem of evil, which it does not. Be precise about which version of the problem your argument is tackling.
一个常见的错误是将自由意志辩护表述为一种神正论，声称解释了上帝为什么实际上允许恶。普兰丁格的辩护是逻辑性的，而不是神正论；它只是旨在表明上帝与恶的存在之间没有逻辑矛盾。它并不声称提供了上帝的实际理由。学生还容易将自由意志辩护与单纯诉诸自由意志的价值相混淆，而忽略了普兰丁格添加了跨世界堕落这一条件——即每一个可能的自由受造物可能至少在一个世界里犯罪——以阻止那种声称上帝本可以创造一个每个人总是自由行善的世界的主张。另一个错误是认为自由意志辩护回应了恶的证据性问题，而实际上它并没有。要准确地说明你的论证是在处理哪个版本的恶的问题。
9. Common Mistake: Confusing Propositional, Acquaintance, and Ability Knowledge | 常见错误：混淆命题知识、亲知知识与能力知识
When discussing the definition of knowledge, students frequently blur the lines between three distinct types of knowledge: propositional knowledge (knowing-that), knowledge by acquaintance (knowing-of), and ability knowledge (knowing-how). The JTB analysis applies exclusively to propositional knowledge. For example, 'I know that Paris is the capital of France' is propositional; 'I know Paris' (acquaintance) and 'I know how to ride a bicycle' (ability) are different kinds. In essays, stating that JTB fails because you can 'know how to swim' without having a justified true belief is a category error.
在讨论知识定义时，学生常常模糊了三种不同知识类型之间的界限：命题知识（知道-that）、亲知知识（知道-of）和能力知识（知道-how）。JTB 分析仅适用于命题知识。例如，‘我知道巴黎是法国的首都’是命题性的；‘我熟悉巴黎’（亲知）和‘我知道如何骑自行车’（能力）是不同的种类。在论文中，声称 JTB 失败了因为你可以在没有被证成的真信念的情况下‘知道如何游泳’，这属于范畴错误。
Make sure you clearly specify that the philosophical investigation of knowledge at AS level is concerned with propositional knowledge. When you examine Gettier cases, you must construct examples where the subject has a justified true propositional belief that intuitively fails to be knowledge. Mixing knowledge types will lose you marks for precision.
要确保你明确地指出，AS 阶段对知识的哲学探究关注的是命题知识。当你考察盖梯尔案例时，你必须构造出主语拥有一个被证成的真命题信念但直觉上却未能构成知识的例子。混淆知识类型会让你因缺乏精确性而失分。
10. Common Mistake: Misapplying Causation and Analogical Reasoning | 常见错误：误用因果与类比推理
Whether you are evaluating the cosmological argument or the design argument, you must handle causal and analogical reasoning with care. A recurrent error is to assert that 'science proves causality' or that ‘quantum physics refutes Aquinas’ without unpacking the philosophical nuances. For instance, some students claim that the Big Bang theory supports the cosmological argument by providing a first event, but this confuses temporal cause with the sustaining cause Aquinas was seeking. Others state that evolution completely destroys the design argument, when in fact the argument can be adapted to point to the fine-tuning of the laws of nature rather than biological complexity.
无论你是在评估宇宙论论证还是设计论证，都必须小心处理因果和类比推理。一个反复出现的错误是断言‘科学证明了因果关系’或‘量子物理学驳斥了阿奎那’，却不展开其中所涉的哲学细微之处。例如，一些学生声称大爆炸理论通过提供第一个事件来支持宇宙论论证，但这混淆了阿奎那所寻求的持存原因与时间性的原因。另一些学生说进化论完全摧毁了设计论证，而事实上该论证可以调整为指向自然法则的精细调谐，而非生物复杂性。
When using scientific theories as part of your evaluation, always link them back to the specific philosophical premises. Do not simply drop a scientific buzzword and expect credit. Explain how the theory interacts with the premises—does it contradict a premise, support it, or simply offer an alternative explanation? Also, in analogical arguments, you must assess the strength of the analogy by identifying relevant similarities and differences. A weak analogy does not make an argument false; it makes it less probable. Use modal language carefully (‘could’, ‘might’, ‘is unlikely’) rather than absolute claims.
在使用科学理论作为评估的一部分时，始终要将它们与具体的哲学前提联系在一起。不要只是抛出一个科学术语就期望得到分数。要解释该理论如何与前提互动——它是矛盾了一个前提，支持了它，还是仅仅提供了一个替代解释？此外，在类比论证中，你必须通过识别相关的相似点和差异点来评估类比的强度。一个弱的类比并不使得论证为假，而是使得论证的可能性降低。要谨慎使用模态语言（‘可能’，‘大概’，‘不太可能’），而非绝对化的主张。
11. Exam Technique: Structuring High-Scoring Evaluation Answers | 考试技巧：构建高分的评估性答案
WJEC examiners consistently report that the top-scoring answers are those that go beyond mere description and engage in sustained, balanced evaluation. For a part (b) evaluation question, your essay must show an understanding of both sides of a debate. A common weak structure is to describe a theory, then add a brief paragraph of criticism at the end. Instead, integrate evaluation throughout: present an argument, raise a criticism, and then consider a response to that criticism. Use signposting phrases such as 'A supporter might reply…' or 'However, this response is limited because…' This demonstrates the AO2 skill of analysis and evaluation.
WJEC 考官不断报告说，得到最高分的答案往往是那些超越单纯描述，并进行了持续、平衡评估的答案。对于 part (b) 的评估性问题，你的论文必须展示出对争论双方的理解。一种常见的薄弱结构是先描述一个理论，最后再添加一段简短的批评。相反，应将评估融入全文：先呈现一个论证，提出一个批评，然后考虑对该批评的回应。使用指引性短语，例如‘一个支持者可能会回答……’或‘然而，这一回应受到限制，因为……’。这展示出了 AO2 的分析与评估技能。
Furthermore, students often fall into the trap of offering only personal opinions unsupported by reasoning. Phrases like 'I think this argument is wrong' are worthless without rationale. Always justify your judgement by appealing to principles, counter-examples, or the strength of competing explanations. When discussing theodicies, for instance, do not just say 'the free will defence fails'; explain why, perhaps because it fails to account for natural evil or because a truly omnipotent God could have created free beings who always freely choose good. End your essay with a reasoned conclusion that weighs the evidence, not a bland summary.
此外，学生经常落入只提供没有推理支持的个人观点的陷阱。像‘我认为这个论证是错的’这样的表述如果没有理由支持，就毫无价值。始终要通过诉诸原则、反例或竞争性解释的力量来证成你的判断。例如，在讨论神正论时，不要只说‘自由意志辩护失败了’；要解释为什么，或许因为它无法解释自然恶，或者因为一个真正全能的上帝本可以创造出总是自由选择善的自由存在者。以权衡证据后的理性结论来结束你的论文，而非平淡的总结。
12. Synthesis and Revision Priorities | 综合与复习优先事项
As you prepare for the examination, prioritise the areas that link multiple themes. The relationship between experience and innateness, the structure of causal arguments, and the problem of evil are rich veins that connect across the specification. Practise writing timed essay plans that force you to move swiftly from exposition to critical evaluation. Identify three strong examples to illustrate each topic, such as the bent stick for illusion, the watch for design, and a Gettier case for knowledge. Above all, concentrate on clarity and precision: define your terms early, distinguish between argument types, and never rest on an assertion without a supporting reason.
在准备考试时，应优先复习那些连接多个主题的领域。经验与天赋之间的关系、因果论证的结构以及恶的问题，都是贯穿整个考纲的丰富矿脉。练习限时写出论文提纲，迫使自己从阐述快速转向批判性评估。为每个主题准备三个有力的例子，比如用弯曲的棍子说明幻觉，用钟表说明设计，用盖梯尔案例说明知识。最重要的是，专注于清晰与精确：尽早定义你的术语，区分论证类型，绝不在没有支撑理由的情况下止于断言。
Remember that philosophy at AS level is not about memorising conclusions but demonstrating the ability to reason through problems. The highest marks go to scripts that show a genuine engagement with the problems and a balanced, fair treatment of counter-arguments. Good luck with your revision and your examinations.
请记住，AS 阶段的哲学不是背诵结论，而是展示你对问题进行推理的能力。最高分的答卷会显示出对问题的真正投入，以及对反证的平衡、公正的处理。祝你的复习和考试顺利。
Published by TutorHao | Philosophy Revision Series | aleveler.com
更多咨询请联系16621398022（同微信）
或截图后用「扫一扫 → 相册」选择本图