[求助]就不信你们都懂了！！GWD逻辑6-Q7

GWD阅读里的逻辑题：我up了一个月没人理，难道你们都懂了？？？

在阅读区又讨论过，无果~~

http://forum.chasedream.com/dispbbs.asp?boardID=25&ID=69442&page=1

原题贴如下：有点长：（

According to a theory advanced by researcher Paul Martin, the wave of species extinctions that occurred in North America about 11,000 years ago, at the end of the Pleistocene era, can be directly attributed to the arrival of humans, i.e., the Paleoindians, who were ancestors of modern Native Americans.  However, anthropologist Shepard Krech points out that large animal species vanished even in areas where there is no evidence to demonstrate that Paleoindians hunted them. Nor were extinctions confined to large animals:  small animals, plants, and insects disappeared, presumably not all through human consumption.  Krech also contradicts Martin’s exclusion of climatic change as an explanation by asserting that widespread climatic change did indeed occur at the end of the Pleistocene.  Still, Krech attributes secondary if not primary responsibility for the extinctions to the Paleoindians, arguing that humans have produced local extinctions elsewhere.

Q6:

Which of the following, if true, would most weaken Krech’s objections to Martin’s theory?

1. Further studies showing that the climatic change that occurred at the end of the Pleistocene era was even more severe and widespread than was previously believed
   
   
2. New discoveries indicating that Paleoindians made use of the small animals, plants, and insects that became extinct
   
   
3. Additional evidence indicating that widespread climatic change occurred not only at the end of the Pleistocene era but also in previous and subsequent eras
   
   
4. Researchers’ discoveries that many more species became extinct in North America at the end of the Pleistocene era than was previously believed
   
   
5. New discoveries establishing that both the arrival of humans in North America and the wave of Pleistocene extinctions took place much earlier than 11,000 years ago

B or C or others？？

C的削弱方式应该是有因无果（有A 发生，但B没有发生）削弱，常理上可以接受。

但是有因无果削弱，尤其是用时间跨度削弱（题目说现在有A 发生，所以B发生，削弱说过去就有A发生过），在OG中几乎没有作为正确选项过。作为错误选项到倒是有（OG29）题目如下：

The number of people diagnosed as having a certain intestinal disease has dropped significantly in a rural county this year, as compared to last year. Health officials attribute this decrease entirely to improved sanitary conditions at water-treatment plants, which made for cleaner water this year and thus reduced the incidence of the disease.

Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the health officials’ explanation for the lower incidence of the disease?

A. Many new water-treatment plants have been built in the last five years in the rural county.

B. Bottled spring water has not been consumed in significantly different quantities by people diagnosed as having the intestinal disease, as compared to people who did not contract the disease.

C. Because of a new diagnostic technique, many people who until this year would have been diagnosed as having the intestinal disease are now correctly diagnosed as suffering from intestinal ulcers.

D. Because of medical advances this year, far fewer people who contract the intestinal disease will develop severe cases of the disease.

E. The water in the rural county was brought up to the sanitary standards of the water in neighboring counties ten years ago.

A项可以认为是跨时间的有因无果，但ETS认为“Since A supports the view that sanitary conditions have been improving, it tends to support the officials’ explanation.”

所以很困惑这种时间跨度削弱（题目说现在有A 发生，所以B发生，削弱说过去就有A发生过）是否能够作为削弱！！

     请NN指教！

我选B哦。

因为原题中,K认为“因为消亡的不止是大动物，还有小动物昆虫之类，所以不是由于人类消费掉的。”那么就是说，他觉得人类不吃小动物和昆虫。

但是B说，发现人类也吃昆虫，所以可以推翻他的推理。

那我说的有关于“有因无果削弱”，斑竹有何高见？？

之前好像讨论了很多了。兄弟怎么不up原贴呢？

开新贴好像把讨论分散了。如果要引起大家注意的，可以在原贴的首贴改名字哦。请下次尽量在一个帖子讨论。谢谢合作～

选项C也有削弱作用，因为K认为是天气变化导致的物种灭亡，并且说在the end of the pleistocene era有剧烈的天气变化。
C说，发现除了在the end of the pleistocene era有剧烈的天气变化，之前和之后也有很多剧烈天气变化。
这就削弱了K的假设（天气变化是物种灭亡的原因）。可是提干要求我们削弱的是objection，而不是K后来的解释。

B,C都是削弱，只是削弱的对象不同。

Which of the following, if true, would most weaken Krech’s objections to Martin’s theory?

我认为，提干要求我们weaken的是objections to Martin’s theory，也就是“人类不是动物消亡的原因”，而不是K的理论“动物消亡的原因是天气。”

等等，好像我理解错了。

Martin’s exclusion，也是M的理论。。。我先去吃个饭，回来再看看。

sorry，耽误你时间看我上面关于C的错误解释了哦。

哦，知道了。是MOST的问题。

B和C都削弱，但是B更削弱。

因为B已经说明了人类吃大和小动物，那么人类就是消亡原因。两者有必然联系。

而C说天气不止在P era发生巨大变化，而不知道在其他天气发生变化的时候，是否也有动物消亡的情况。不能说天气和动物的消亡有必然联系，也不能说他们必然没有联系。削弱力度很小。

我原来是选C的，后来看了好几遍，觉得是B，而C是无关。同意B的理由与斑竹您有所不同。

B：New discoveries indicating that Paleoindians made use of the small animals, plants, and insects that became extinct 定从说明灭绝在先，消费至少是在灭绝开始之后。并非人类消费导致灭绝

K的观点：Nor were extinctions confined to large animals:  small animals, plants, and insects disappeared, presumably not all through human consumption

B反对了K的观点，不是通过支持M的观点而反对K的，而是通过直接反对K的观点。所以B也合题意

C是无关，就算以前以后有过天气变化，对于论证现在的天气与灭绝又有什么帮助呢? 斑竹您说的“削弱力度很小”，我以前同意，但是现在不同意，因为我发现OG中没有过这样的正确答案过，所以，我觉得ETS 可能不把这种方式的“削弱”看为削弱。 您觉得呢？