ChaseDream

标题: GWD-3-16 [打印本页]

作者: liu977    时间: 2005-7-8 21:55
标题: 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.


这题看过前面的帖子了,可是大家的问题好像都集中在(2),我觉得(2)的表述很清楚,但(1)个人认为应该是economist的论点,而且还有一个even though表让步,那就应该是反对environmentist的呀。。。


请指教~~



作者: liu977    时间: 2005-7-9 17:44
ding~~
作者: lawyer_1    时间: 2005-7-9 19:42
让步是为了更大的支持,不能看成削弱。实质上1句是环境学家的观点的前提,第二句就是环境学家的观点。所以C是个很好的答案。
作者: liu977    时间: 2005-7-9 22:45

居然请动了laywer大N,十万分感谢。。。


可是还是不能明白这道题,不知是不是我的阅读能力太差,这道题读了不下5遍,愣是没懂,做题也全是考转折、语气词判断的,请哪位好心人帮忙翻译一下大意好吗?


小女子这厢有礼了~~


作者: lawyer_1    时间: 2005-7-10 00:38

一个总追求利润的公司购买一块养牛的森林地,该地的新长的草几年后就不能养牛(背景知识),但该公司没用去开发利润更大的橡胶,从而保存该片森林的完整(环境学家的观点的理由)。所以,环境学家认为该公司并不完全以利益为中心(环境学家的观点)。但是,该观点是错的(经济学家的观点)。以下列举三个理由:初步投资,工人,税收。(经济学家观点的理由



作者: liu977    时间: 2005-7-10 22:34

十万分感谢,题目果然一目了然。。


但是忽然觉得自己做BF题的思路不大对了,是只考虑黑体字部分的内容呢,还是要联系它所在句整句的意思?


比如这题的黑体部分仅仅是:即使开发橡胶会带来更大的利润。


这感觉是事实嘛,不存在谁的观点问题呀。。


继续执着


作者: lawyer_1    时间: 2005-7-11 21:23

要将整个短文看作一个整体,一个小论文,是作者在企图表达某个观点,由论据和论点组成,论据可能还有其论据。或者作者在反对某个观点,由待反对的观点及其论据,作者反对的证据组成。不管那句话,都要麽是论点,要末是论据


作者: Colin33    时间: 2005-7-11 23:03

lawyer_1,


久闻你总结的逻辑方法好,在那里下载?


作者: liu977    时间: 2005-7-12 08:43
以下是引用Colin33在2005-7-11 23:03:00的发言:

lawyer_1,


久闻你总结的逻辑方法好,在那里下载?


http://forum.chasedream.com/dispbbs.asp?boardID=24&ID=88647&page=1


http://forum.chasedream.com/dispbbs.asp?boardID=24&ID=74525&page=1


[此贴子已经被作者于2005-7-12 8:43:51编辑过]

作者: liu977    时间: 2005-7-12 08:45
以下是引用lawyer_1在2005-7-11 21:23:00的发言:

要将整个短文看作一个整体,一个小论文,是作者在企图表达某个观点,由论据和论点组成,论据可能还有其论据。或者作者在反对某个观点,由待反对的观点及其论据,作者反对的证据组成。不管那句话,都要麽是论点,要末是论据


收到~~再去体会。。。3ks


作者: Colin33    时间: 2005-7-12 10:34

977, 俺这里谢谢啦!


作者: simple_dream    时间: 2008-1-23 18:00

lawyer果然大牛,万分感谢。。






欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/) Powered by Discuz! X3.3