求助 gwd30-32

GWD30-32

Q32:

A major chemical spill occurred five years ago at Baker’s Beach, the world’s sole nesting ground for Merrick sea turtles, and prevented nearly all the eggs laid that year from hatching. Yet the number of adult female Merricks returning to lay their eggs at Baker’s Beach has actually increased somewhat since five years ago.  Clearly, environmentalists’ prediction that the world’s Merrick population would decline as a result of the spill has proven unfounded.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the argument offered in refutation of the environmentalists’ prediction?

1. The chemical spill five years ago occurred at a time when there were neither Merrick sea turtles nor Merrick sea turtle eggs on Baker’s Beach.
2. Female Merrick sea turtles begin returning to Baker’s Beach to lay their eggs when they are ten years old.
3. Under normal conditions, only a small proportion of hatchling female Merrick sea turtles survive in the ocean until adulthood and return to lay their eggs at Baker’s Beach.
4. Environmental pressures unrelated to the chemical spill have caused a significant decline in the population of one of the several species of sea birds that prey on Merrick sea turtle eggs.
5. After the chemical spill, an environmental group rejected a proposal to increase the Merrick sea turtle population by transferring eggs from Baker’s Beach to nearby beaches that had not been affected by the spill.

个人觉得A,D,E无关

B,C好像有一点沾边

但是B跟原文到底是哪里沾边?不是很清楚

答案是B

大家谈谈自己的观点吧

我B,C的意思没太懂,它们到底和原文怎么有关的?

答案是B  是他因削弱

龟龟10岁才回来下蛋，所以五年前的major chemical spill 还没起到作用

你体会一下

原文的逻辑推理是这样的，因为过去五年间来xx beach下蛋的海龟增多，因此环境学家关于化学物质泄漏引起海龟数量下降的推论是没有道理的。。言外之意是，来xx beach下蛋的海龟数量能代表化学物质泄漏对海龟数量的影响。

B是正确的，因为B说海龟要10岁以上才下蛋，因此现在来下蛋的海龟并不能代表化学物质泄漏的影响，因为受影响的海龟还不到下蛋的年龄；其他的不能削弱。

D跟原文的推理过程没有关系；属于无关选项。

首先得弄清楚题目中的逻辑推理过程。

原文的逻辑推理是这样的，因为过去五年间来xx beach下蛋的海龟增多，因此环境学家关于化学物质泄漏引起海龟数量下降的推论是没有道理的。。言外之意是，来xx beach下蛋的海龟数量能代表化学物质泄漏对海龟数量的影响。

D是不对的，从原文的逻辑来看，他说有chemical spill那么显然会减少乌龟的孵出数，那么原文有个discrepency

为什么回来下蛋的乌龟反增无减。

D无关，Environmental pressures 文中没有提到，另外即使D不无关，

它吃的蛋减少了，并不能解决乌龟的孵出数减少的问题。随着孵出的乌龟越来越少，回来下蛋的还是得减少，不是吗？

哦,懂了,其实我还是败在没理清原文的逻辑关系

THX!

我感到你的推理有问题，科学家只是预测化学物质泄漏能够对海龟数量造成影响，并没有说“来xx beach下蛋的海龟数量能代表化学物质泄漏对海龟数量的影响。”，一点也看不出来。

这是你强加上去的逻辑链，影响了后面的推导

首先关于你的第一点理由，是牵强的，因为b也无法说明这个现象

第二点，乌龟的孵出数减少只是五年前的事情，科学家的预测也是5年前的事故对今后的影响，没有任何信息说明5年后由化学泄漏造成的减少仍然存在

open to discussion