ChaseDream

标题: feifei－14题，如何比较削弱 [打印本页]

作者: Jiuamhca 时间: 2005-9-15 15:29
标题: 费费第三部份第14题，如何比较削弱

Neighboring landholders: Air pollution from the giant aluminum refinery that has been built next to our land is killing our plants.

Company spokesperson: The refinery is not to blame, since our study shows that the damage is due to insects and fungi. Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the conclusion drawn by the company spokesperson?

(A) The study did not measure the quantity of pollutants emitted into the surrounding air by the aluminum refinery.

(B) The neighboring landholders have made no change in the way they take care of their plants.

(C) Air pollution from the refinery has changed the chemical balance in the plants' environment, allowing the harmful insects and fungi to thrive

(D) Pollutants that are invisible and odorless are emitted into the surrounding air by the refinery.

(E) The various species of insects and fungi mentioned in the study have been occasionally found in the locality during the past hundred years

答案是C，个人认为E选项比C选项要更直接的去否定Company spokesperson

不知道我这样想对不对?

不知能否有人说一下遇到这样的状况时该如何处理，才远出正确选项呀？

作者: 天之角 时间: 2005-9-15 22:10
当然是C更直接了，过去一百年没有不代表现在的状况就是有chemical pollution引起的，C直接将这种情况与chemical pollution联系起来更好。

作者: namisun 时间: 2005-9-16 03:51

同意楼上的

C选择说明公司的人是在狡辩，他们对污染脱不了干系

作者: Jiuamhca 时间: 2005-9-18 16:29

我的直觉是

Company spokesperson说损害是由insects and fungi所引起的

而E选项直接否决的Company spokesperson所说的，因为insects and fungi在过去几百年就有存在了

这样不是比C更直接去否定了吗？

欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/)