ChaseDream
搜索
返回列表 发新帖
查看: 5661|回复: 9
打印 上一主题 下一主题

gwd-3-16

[复制链接]
楼主
发表于 2005-2-23 04:19:00 | 只看该作者

gwd-3-16

Q16:




Economist:  Tropicorp, which constantly seeks profitable investment opportunities, has been buying and clearing sections of tropical forest for cattle ranching, although pastures newly created there become useless for grazing after just a few years.  The company has not gone into rubber tapping, even though greater profits can be made from rubber tapping, which leaves the forest intact.  Thus, some environmentalists conclude that Tropicorp has not acted wholly out of economic self-interest.  However, these environmentalists are probably wrong.  The initial investment required for a successful rubber-tapping operation is larger than that needed for a cattle ranch.  Furthermore, there is a shortage of workers employable in rubber-tapping operations, and finally, taxes are higher on profits from rubber tapping than on profits from cattle ranching.






In the economist’s argument, the two boldfaced portions play which of the following roles?






A.    The first supports the conclusion of the economist’s argument; the second calls that conclusion into question.



B.    The first states the conclusion of the economist’s argument; the second supports that conclusion.



C.     The first supports the environmentalists’ conclusion; the second states that conclusion.



D.    The first states the environmentalists’ conclusion; the second states the conclusion of the economist’s argument.



e.) Each supports the conclusion of the economist’s argument.


为什么选c ?


Thus, some environmentalists conclude that Tropicorp has not acted wholly out of economic self-interest.  However, these environmentalists are probably wrong.


说明Economist对environmentalists 的观点是反对的呀,那么答案C中的the second states that conclusion意义不符!


看了以前的帖子,没有很好的说明,请nn指教!


沙发
发表于 2005-2-23 09:23:00 | 只看该作者
MM,你要先看清楚答案。C:The first supports the environmentalists’ conclusion; the second states that conclusion.两个说的都是environmentalists的结论,和经济学家完全没有关系。
板凳
 楼主| 发表于 2005-3-24 01:11:00 | 只看该作者
谢谢JJ指点,呵呵,太粗心了!
地板
发表于 2005-4-26 12:21:00 | 只看该作者
我想多问句support 和state有啥明显区别嘛?
5#
发表于 2005-5-14 23:01:00 | 只看该作者

support是支持,说明BF1是一个论据

state是陈述,说明BF2在陈述结论本身

6#
发表于 2006-1-13 16:28:00 | 只看该作者
以下是引用携隐在2005-2-23 9:23:00的发言:
MM,你要先看清楚答案。C:The first supports the environmentalists’ conclusion; the second states that conclusion.两个说的都是environmentalists的结论,和经济学家完全没有关系。

Agree.

And, However, these environmentalists are probably wrong is the conclusion of this discussion.

7#
发表于 2006-1-29 19:57:00 | 只看该作者
agree with wingkim, or it's Economist's conclusion.
8#
发表于 2008-1-5 11:41:00 | 只看该作者

弱问下?

The company has not gone into rubber tapping, even though greater profits can be made from rubber tapping, which leaves the forest intact.

这里的which leaves the forest intact. 修饰 的是什么啊?

按 语法 是修饰  rubber tapping 啊 ,

但是 逻辑意思是指 :  

公司 没有 gone to rubber  tapping  这件事 

leaves the forest intact.

 

9#
发表于 2008-2-14 09:25:00 | 只看该作者
why not D
10#
发表于 2008-5-28 16:44:00 | 只看该作者

The first states the environmentalists’ conclusion; the second states the conclusion of the economist’s argument.

第一个BF是事实,不是结论;第二个BF是环境学家的结论,不是经济学家的

您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 立即注册

Mark一下! 看一下! 顶楼主! 感谢分享! 快速回复:

手机版|ChaseDream|GMT+8, 2024-12-1 15:36
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号

ChaseDream 论坛

© 2003-2023 ChaseDream.com. All Rights Reserved.

返回顶部