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 beaches that had not been affected by the spill.
作者: yangsh 时间: 2005-11-10 21:12
B
作者: howardwang 时间: 2005-11-10 23:35
B是对的。
10年前的情况，不能说明5年内。
作者: sv2000 时间: 2005-11-11 09:14
还是不太明白，请牛牛给翻译一下吧。
[此贴子已经被作者于2005-11-11 9:14:30编辑过]
作者: yangsh 时间: 2005-11-11 10:12
5年前，化学污染导致乌龟蛋[乌龟下蛋唯一的地点]不能孵化，但是5年来，去那里下蛋的母乌龟数量在上升。两者矛盾，因此环境学家认为由于化学污染导致乌龟数量下降的结论是错误的。
问：反对环境学家的论点。
乌龟一般在10岁之后才去下蛋[暗示：增长的乌龟数量是10年前的，与5年前的污染没有关系]
另外，你这个gwd-29有没有电子版本，给大家分享一下阿，shouhai@tom.com 谢谢！
作者: sv2000 时间: 2005-11-11 11:11
多谢YONGSH!这些是从GWD小班里抄出来的，等有空了把这些都抄出来在
作者: howardwang 时间: 2005-11-11 11:17
谢谢sv2000！
还有比较困难的题的话，辛苦贴出来。大家探讨啊！
作者: qweasdzxc 时间: 2005-11-11 12:27
most seriously undermines the argument offered in refutation of the environmentalists’ prediction?
的意思是说最严重破坏对环境学家语言的驳斥观点吧。那不就意味着支持环境学家的观点？
作者: star_eternity 时间: 2005-11-11 12:32
这题是问削弱反驳环境学家论点的arguement吧。
作者: zimmer5 时间: 2005-11-11 13:16
我觉得是c吧？
most seriously undermines the argument offered in refutation of the environmentalists’ prediction。 问的是下面的哪句话，削弱了本句中所给出的反对环境学家的观点
c中说正常情况下，只有很少产蛋母龟可以存活到成年并回来生蛋蛋，（言下之意是说很有可能是龟量下降才导致非正常情况发生的
可能我说错了，大家帮我纠正纠正呀
| 欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/) | Powered by Discuz! X3.3 |