ChaseDream

标题: [讨论] 一真题 [打印本页]
作者: WalkByFaith    时间: 2005-9-9 14:23
标题: [讨论] 一真题

A major chemical spill occurred five years ago at Baker’s Beach, the world’s sole nesting ground for Merrick sea turtles, and prevented nearly all the eggs laid that year from hatching.  Yet the number of adult female Merricks returning to lay their eggs at Baker’s Beach has actually increased somewhat since five years ago.  Clearly, environmentalists’ prediction that the world’s Merrick population would decline as a result of the spill has proven unfounded.



Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the argument offered in refutation of the environmentalists’ prediction?




  • The chemical spill five years ago occurred at a time when there were neither Merrick sea turtles nor Merrick sea turtle eggs on Baker’s Beach.

  • Female Merrick sea turtles begin returning to Baker’s Beach to lay their eggs when they are ten years old.

  • Under normal conditions, only a small proportion of hatchling female Merrick sea turtles survive in the ocean until adulthood and return to lay their eggs at Baker’s Beach.

  • Environmental pressures unrelated to the chemical spill have caused a significant decline in the population of one of the several species of sea birds that prey on Merrick sea turtle eggs.

  • After the chemical spill, an environmental group rejected a proposal to increase the Merrick sea turtle population by transferring eggs from Baker’s Beach to nearby beach that had not been affected by the spill.

    • no reference answer and i chose E ; however, really not sure at all.


    作者: howardwang    时间: 2005-9-9 17:49
    我觉得是B.
    作者: WalkByFaith    时间: 2005-9-9 23:20

    howardwang兄弟，我一开始也觉得B像答案；可就是说不上理。


    能否说说理由啊，帮小弟解说一下呀；多谢！

    作者: 天之角    时间: 2005-9-9 23:54
    光看题就晕一会，most seriously undermines the argument offered in refutation of the environmentalists’ prediction，没看懂是加强还是削弱。
    作者: 潜龙勿用    时间: 2005-9-10 04:16
    以下是引用whq2002在2005-9-9 23:20:00的发言：

    howardwang兄弟，我一开始也觉得B像答案；可就是说不上理。


    能否说说理由啊，帮小弟解说一下呀；多谢！



    体会一下five years ago和ten years old之间的the link of reason...
    作者: wingback    时间: 2005-9-10 09:30
    definately it's B, if B is true, the statement would only support the fact that there was an increase in the number of turtles born 15 years ago
    作者: howardwang    时间: 2005-9-10 16:12

    结论：environmentalists’ prediction that the world’s LACE w:st="on">MerrickLACE> population would decline as a result of the spill has proven unfounded


    若削弱该结论，实际上也就等于支持environmentalists’ prediction 的观点the world’s LACE w:st="on">MerrickLACE> population would decline 。


    那么，就需要找个理由解释，为什么sea turtles的蛋几乎不能孵化（是the world’s LACE w:st="on">MerrickLACE> population would decline 的根据），而A major chemical spill occurred 五年后，the number of adult female LACE w:st="on">MerricksLACE> returning to lay their eggs at Baker’s Beach has actually increase.(类似于解释矛盾的题)


    B.Female LACE w:st="on">MerrickLACE> sea turtles begin returning to Baker’s Beach to lay their eggs when they are ten years old.


    刚好清晰的解释了这个矛盾，即adult female Merricks returning to lay their eggs at Baker’s Beach 是在A major chemical spill occurred之前出生的。

    作者: WalkByFaith    时间: 2005-9-11 01:48

    thanks, guys, particularly howardwang, you explain it very clearly.


    i was confused by the sentence: "...Yet the number of adult female LACE w:st="on">MerricksLACE> returning to lay their eggs at Baker’s Beach has actually increased somewhat since five years ago. " at the beginning.


    'increased somewhat' is really not reasonable here, though it is not wrong.





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