ChaseDream
标题: 大全上关于石油的一道题 [打印本页]
作者: lisiberry 时间: 2017-3-18 02:36
标题: 大全上关于石油的一道题
Most geologists believe oil results from chemical transformations of hydrocarbons derived from organisms buried under ancient seas. Suppose, instead, that oil actually results from bacterial action on other complex hydrocarbons that are trapped within the Earth. As is well known, the volume of these hydrocarbons exceeds that of buried organisms. Therefore, our oil reserves would be greater than most geologists believe.
Which of the following, if true, gives the strongest support to the argument above about our oil reserves?
(A) Most geologists think optimistically about the Earth’s reserves of oil.
(B) Most geologists have performed accurate chemical analyses on previously discovered oil reserves.
(C) Ancient seas are buried within the Earth at many places where fossils are abundant.
(D) The only bacteria yet found in oil reserves could have leaked down drill holes from surface contaminants.
(E) Chemical transformations reduce the volume of buried hydrocarbons derived from organisms by roughly the same proportion as bacterial action reduces the volume of other complex hydrocarbons.
OA：E
没看明白E选项的意思，哪位化学学得不错的能不能请教一下？
作者: lisiberry 时间: 2017-3-18 03:08
明白鸟
http://forum.chasedream.com/thread-587562-1-1.html
(E) Chemical transformations reduce the volume of buried hydrocarbons derived from organisms by roughly the same proportion as bacterial action reduces the volume of other complex hydrocarbons.
举例说明吧，buried hydrocarbon有 5千克，chemical transformation reuduce 了 10%，结果形成了4.5千克oil
other complex hydrocarbons 有50千克(题目中说了，储量丰富）， bacteria action reduce了相同的比例，10%，结果形成了，45千克oil。这样不就support argument了吗？
作者: lisiberry 时间: 2017-3-18 03:13
最开始有点没理解的原因是
碳水化合物在转换为石油的过程中，不管是化学转换（cheminal transformations）还是细菌作用（ bacterial action ）都会减少碳水化合物的体积。
作者: RRZZR 时间: 2017-3-18 03:40
哈哈，自己解决了阿。
这题是strongest support题，找不绕弯子就support的选项，E肯定最好。
但实际上题目逻辑漏洞很多，比如结论是our oil reserves would be greater ，Volume是衡量oil reserve的最终指标吗？题目没说。
和volume同样重要的衡量指标多了去了，比如energy density，同样volume的energy density可能很不一样（即人们说的 什么oil“质量好”，就是指最直接的energy density）
不管怎么说，翻了一遍选项，都不如E
作者: lisiberry 时间: 2017-3-18 03:45
这两天休假，有足够的时间找资料。所以自问自答了。
这道题最开始会做错可能是因为以前地理没学好。。。
作者: RRZZR 时间: 2017-3-18 03:48
你回复的好快，我又加了一点评论。。。
作者: lisiberry 时间: 2017-3-18 04:05
多谢科普。不愧是小科学家。
其实我看这道题时想，即使说发现了细菌作用也可以产生石油，但说不定这些石油也都开采完了呢。
不过这个思路好像没派上用场。
作者: yaya杨 时间: 2017-3-18 17:59
恩恩~其实就是第二种转化方法的油的原材料多，所以推出我们的油很够用。但是逻辑漏洞就是，两种转化效率不同，就hh了。万一第二种原料多，但是浪费的也多，油出的少，那就不能说明我们的油够用了。所以E就补了这个漏洞。
lisiberry，这种解释会不会更好理解？
作者: lisiberry 时间: 2017-3-18 18:19
谢谢yaya帮忙，你的解释非常简洁明了。理解了
。
| 欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/) |
Powered by Discuz! X3.3 |