10. Millions of irreplaceable exhibits in natural history museums are currently allowed to decay. Yet without analyses of eggs from museums, the studies linking pesticides with the decline of Birds of prey would have been impossible Therefore, funds must be raised to preserve at least those exhibits that will be most valuable to science in the future
The argument presupposes that:
(A) If a museum exhibit is irreplaceable, its preservation is of an importance that overrides economic considerations.
(B) The scientific analysis of museum exhibits can be performed in nondestructive way
(C) Eggs of extinct species should be analyzed to increase knowledge of genetic relationships among species
(D) It can be known at this time what data will be of most use to scientific investigators in the future
(E) The decay of organic material in natural history exhibits is natural and cannot be prevented
D is the key. Why not B? I use the method of negation and find B works too.
Premise 1: Millions of irreplaceable exhibits are allowed to decay.
Premise 2: analyses of eggs from museums~->the studies of the linking would have been impossible.(an illustration of an undeirable result of premise 1)
Conclusion: Funds must be raised to preserve at least those exhibits most valuable to future studies.
The concept-"exhibits most valuable to fututure studies"-never appears in the premises. So the key is D.
As to B, I think that the stimulus' emphasis is placed on the importance of exhibits to scientific studies. It seems that preservation itself is the objective.Why premise 2 is given, otherwise?
| 欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/) | Powered by Discuz! X3.3 |