Prep1-15 请帮忙看看

magieus

Astronomer: Observations of the Shoemaker-Levi comet on its collision course with Jupiter showed that the comet broke into fragments before entering Jupiter's atmosphere in 1994, but they did not show how big those fragments were.  In hopes of gaining some indication of the fragments' size, astronomers studied spectrographic analyses of Jupiter's outer atmosphere.  These analyses revealed unprecedented traces of sulfur after the fragments' entry. The fragments themselves almost certainly contained no sulfur, but many astronomers believe that the cloud layer below Jupiter's outer atmosphere does contain sulfur.  Since sulfur would have seeped into the outer atmosphere if comet fragments had penetrated this cloud layer, it is likely that some of the fragments were at least large enough to have passed through Jupiter's outer atmosphere without being burned up.

In the astronomer's argument, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?

In the astronomer's argument, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?

(A) The first presents a circumstance for which the astronomer offers an explanation; the second is part of that explanation.

(A) The first presents a circumstance for which the astronomer offers an explanation; the second is part of that explanation.

(B) The first acknowledges a consideration that weighs against the conclusion of the argument; the second is that conclusion.

(C) The first acknowledges a consideration that weighs against the conclusion of the argument; the second provides evidence in support of that conclusion.

(D) The first provides evidence in support of the conclusion of the argument; the second acknowledges a consideration that weighs against that conclusion.

(E) The first is a judgment advanced in support of the conclusion of the argument; the second is that conclusion.

我做BF题的正确率一直非常低，一知道大家有没有好的方法。这题ANS居然是E，我选了A。请NN指点。我是根本不明白为什么选E。

[此贴子已经被作者于2007-6-2 4:45:38编辑过]

MissNewMe

我做bf也是屡战屡错~~从来没有对过~~~~不知道怎么做。。。

等待nn~~~~

woshilaoyumi

这道题这么长,完全可以把它当成阅读来看,

In hopes of gaining some indication of the fragments' size, astronomers studied...这是目的。目的就是要求出fragment有多大。studied 后面的那一长串是得到fragment有多大的推理。通过引入另一个物质“sulfur”来判断。文章最后it is likely that some of the fragments were at least large enough to have passed through Jupiter's outer atmosphere without being burned up.这是结论.

所以两个黑体之间的关系是E.

我不是NN，最近也在看逻辑。找感觉中。。。 BF题我一直觉得应该象阅读那样理解它，不知道是不是这个思路。请NN斧正。

magieus

这道题跟本月JJ的一道GWD原题是一样的，但是选项不同, 答案有争议. 但是这题的C是还挺好理解的,Prep的那个答案真的看不懂"since"后面怎么会是conclusino呢?, 请XDJM指点.

6.GWD-29-Q28

Astronomer:  Observations of the Shoemaker-Levi comet on its collision course with Jupiter showed that the comet broke into fragments before entering Jupiter’s atmosphere in 1994, but they did not show how big those fragments were.  Nevertheless, some indication of their size can be inferred from spectrographic analyses of Jupiter’s outer atmosphere.  After the fragments’ entry, these analyses revealed unprecedented traces of sulfur.  The fragments themselves almost certainly contained no sulfur, but astronomers believe that the cloud layer below Jupiter’s outer atmosphere does contain sulfur.  Since sulfur would have seeped into the outer atmosphere if comet fragments had penetrated this cloud layer, it is likely that some of the fragments were at least large enough to have passed through Jupiter’s outer atmosphere without being burned up.

In the astronomer’s argument, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?

 

1. The first is a claim that the astronomer seeks to show is true; the second acknowledges a consideration that weighs against the truth of that claim.

2. The first is a claim that the astronomer seeks to show is true; the second provides evidence in support of the truth of that claim.

3. The first and the second are each considerations advanced in support of the conclusion of the argument.

4. The first provides evidence in support of the conclusion of the argument; the second is that conclusion.

5. The first is a circumstance for which the astronomer seeks to provide an explanation; the second acknowledges a consideration that weighs against the explanation provided by the astronomer.

C 

realshy

后面一句的结论说碎片大到能够经受大气层磨损而不被磨损光后通过大气层。

而前面一句是支持结论的证据，因为只有大气层被穿透过，大气层下面的云层才会在穿透时候有机会进入大气层，从而把大气层里没有而云层里面有的硫元素带入到大气层里面。

唉，其实CR就是考阅读，可惜要在短时间内读懂只能指望好好提高阅读能力了，唉

s7s7

lz这题弄错了，这题有两个版本，从此以后就不会在误导大家了，这题也是本月JJ

1.         GWD-29-Q28C

Astronomer:  Observations of the Shoemaker-Levi comet on its collision course with Jupiter showed that the comet broke into fragments before entering Jupiter’s atmosphere in 1994, but they did not show how big those fragments were.  Nevertheless, some indication of their size can be inferred from spectrographic analyses of Jupiter’s outer atmosphere.  After the fragments’ entry, these analyses revealed unprecedented traces of sulfur.  The fragments themselves almost certainly contained no sulfur, but astronomers believe that the cloud layer below Jupiter’s outer atmosphere does contain sulfur.  Since sulfur would have seeped into the outer atmosphere if comet fragments had penetrated this cloud layer, it is likely that some of the fragments were at least large enough to have passed through Jupiter’s outer atmosphere without being burned up.

 

 

In the astronomer’s argument, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?

 

 

1. The first is a claim that the astronomer seeks to show is true; the second acknowledges a consideration that weighs against the truth of that claim.
2. The first is a claim that the astronomer seeks to show is true; the second provides evidence in support of the truth of that claim.
3. The first and the second are each considerations advanced in support of the conclusion of the argument.
4. The first provides evidence in support of the conclusion of the argument; the second is that conclusion.
5. The first is a circumstance for which the astronomer seeks to provide an explanation; the second acknowledges a consideration that weighs against the explanation provided by the astronomer.

C

15.   (26883-!-item-!-188;#058&002985)     [GWD #29-Q28]

 

 

Astronomer: Observations of the Shoemaker-Levi comet on its collision course with Jupiter showed that the comet broke into fragments before entering Jupiter's atmosphere in 1994, but they did not show how big those fragments were.  In hopes of gaining some indication of the fragments' size, astronomers studied spectrographic analyses of Jupiter's outer atmosphere.  These analyses revealed unprecedented traces of sulfur after the fragments' entry. The fragments themselves almost certainly contained no sulfur, but many astronomers believe that the cloud layer below Jupiter's outer atmosphere does contain sulfur.  Since sulfur would have seeped into the outer atmosphere if comet fragments had penetrated this cloud layer, it is likely that some of the fragments were at least large enough to have passed through Jupiter's outer atmosphere without being burned up.

 

 

In the astronomer's argument, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?

 

 

(A) The first presents a circumstance for which the astronomer offers an explanation; the second is part of that explanation.

(B) The first acknowledges a consideration that weighs against the conclusion of the argument; the second is that conclusion.

(C) The first acknowledges a consideration that weighs against the conclusion of the argument; the second provides evidence in support of that conclusion.

(D) The first provides evidence in support of the conclusion of the argument; the second acknowledges a consideration that weighs against that conclusion.

(E) The first is a judgment advanced in support of the conclusion of the argument; the second is that conclusion.

[此贴子已经被作者于2007-6-13 7:44:00编辑过]

s7s7

15.   (26883-!-item-!-188;#058&002985)     [GWD #29-Q28]

 

Astronomer: Observations of the Shoemaker-Levi comet on its collision course with Jupiter showed that the comet broke into fragments before entering Jupiter's atmosphere in 1994, but they did not show how big those fragments were.  In hopes of gaining some indication of the fragments' size, astronomers studied spectrographic analyses of Jupiter's outer atmosphere.  These analyses revealed unprecedented traces of sulfur after the fragments' entry. The fragments themselves almost certainly contained no sulfur, but many astronomers believe that the cloud layer below Jupiter's outer atmosphere does contain sulfur.  Since sulfur would have seeped into the outer atmosphere if comet fragments had penetrated this cloud layer, it is likely that some of the fragments were at least large enough to have passed through Jupiter's outer atmosphere without being burned up.

 

In the astronomer's argument, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?

 

(A) The first presents a circumstance for which the astronomer offers an explanation; the second is part of that explanation.

(B) The first acknowledges a consideration that weighs against the conclusion of the argument; the second is that conclusion.

(C) The first acknowledges a consideration that weighs against the conclusion of the argument; the second provides evidence in support of that conclusion.

(D) The first provides evidence in support of the conclusion of the argument; the second acknowledges a consideration that weighs against that conclusion.

(E) The first is a judgment advanced in support of the conclusion of the argument; the second is that conclusion.

brandie_who

我不是NN，呵呵，只想说一下自己做BF题的感受，和大家共同探讨一下。

个人觉得，BF题主要看你对小短文（几乎可以这样认为了）的起承转合有所把握，其实文章具体在说些什么并不是太重要。关键是象看阅读那样抓住一些转折、结论、引用、举例等等的关键字。这样可能会对快速解题有所帮助。

mimixiaxia

up

qianrene

以下是引用s7s7在2007-6-13 7:42:00的发言：

lz这题弄错了，这题有两个版本，从此以后就不会在误导大家了，这题也是本月JJ

1.         GWD-29-Q28C

Astronomer:  Observations of the Shoemaker-Levi comet on its collision course with Jupiter showed that the comet broke into fragments before entering Jupiter’s atmosphere in 1994, but they did not show how big those fragments were.  Nevertheless, some indication of their size can be inferred from spectrographic analyses of Jupiter’s outer atmosphere.  After the fragments’ entry, these analyses revealed unprecedented traces of sulfur.  The fragments themselves almost certainly contained no sulfur, but astronomers believe that the cloud layer below Jupiter’s outer atmosphere does contain sulfur.  Since sulfur would have seeped into the outer atmosphere if comet fragments had penetrated this cloud layer, it is likely that some of the fragments were at least large enough to have passed through Jupiter’s outer atmosphere without being burned up.

 

 

 

In the astronomer’s argument, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?

 

 

 

1. The first is a claim that the astronomer seeks to show is true; the second acknowledges a consideration that weighs against the truth of that claim.
2. The first is a claim that the astronomer seeks to show is true; the second provides evidence in support of the truth of that claim.
3. The first and the second are each considerations advanced in support of the conclusion of the argument.
4. The first provides evidence in support of the conclusion of the argument; the second is that conclusion.
5. The first is a circumstance for which the astronomer seeks to provide an explanation; the second acknowledges a consideration that weighs against the explanation provided by the astronomer.

C

15.   (26883-!-item-!-188;#058&002985)     [GWD #29-Q28]

 

 

 

Astronomer: Observations of the Shoemaker-Levi comet on its collision course with Jupiter showed that the comet broke into fragments before entering Jupiter's atmosphere in 1994, but they did not show how big those fragments were.  In hopes of gaining some indication of the fragments' size, astronomers studied spectrographic analyses of Jupiter's outer atmosphere.  These analyses revealed unprecedented traces of sulfur after the fragments' entry. The fragments themselves almost certainly contained no sulfur, but many astronomers believe that the cloud layer below Jupiter's outer atmosphere does contain sulfur.  Since sulfur would have seeped into the outer atmosphere if comet fragments had penetrated this cloud layer, it is likely that some of the fragments were at least large enough to have passed through Jupiter's outer atmosphere without being burned up.

 

 

 

In the astronomer's argument, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?

 

 

 

(A) The first presents a circumstance for which the astronomer offers an explanation; the second is part of that explanation.

(B) The first acknowledges a consideration that weighs against the conclusion of the argument; the second is that conclusion.

(C) The first acknowledges a consideration that weighs against the conclusion of the argument; the second provides evidence in support of that conclusion.

(D) The first provides evidence in support of the conclusion of the argument; the second acknowledges a consideration that weighs against that conclusion.

(E) The first is a judgment advanced in support of the conclusion of the argument; the second is that conclusion.

GWD版本选D，而E并不好

E：The first is a circumstance for which the astronomer seeks to provide an explanation; the second acknowledges a consideration that weighs against the explanation provided by the astronomer.

作者并没有对那个含有硫磺的事实进行解释，而就算后面那句“The fragments themselves almost certainly contained no sulfur, but astronomers believe that the cloud layer below Jupiter’s outer atmosphere does contain sulfur. ”是解释，第2个黑体也并不是说碎片就含有硫磺了（并没有weighs against这个解释），而是说大气层含有硫磺，所以我引号里这句（大气含有硫磺）和第1个黑体（碎片含有硫磺）加起来得出第2个黑体即结论（碎片穿过大气才使得有硫磺）

D的第二黑体就是结论，结论是证明碎片很大穿过了气层，只是这个黑体只说了穿过气层，没有说很大，可以说是一个中间结论，最后一句是重复说结论或者说是最后结论