GWD 17-11 帮忙看看吧 - ChaseDream

argument: Clearly, dropping this restriction would allow the other species to recover.

B It has been many years since the restriction led to the hunting season for snow geese being closed earlier than the scheduled date.　 --> does that mean for so many years, snow geese have been reduced by 5% by hunters?

我也很不明白这个选项，看得我一头雾水，既然Restriction让打猎结束日期提前了，goose的数量得到了保护，那么自然会得到越来越多的goose越来越威胁到了一些其他的species，怎么还是weaken呢？

选b: 1）文章说只要when hunting has reduced the population by five percent，那么hunting season 就会结束，因此，不论是提前结束还是按时结束，都会产生一个相同的结果，就是population of the snow geese was reduced by five percent. 2）文章还有snow geese are a popular quarry for hunters 所以在hunting season 其他birds 也是会捕杀的。由 1，2 可得 hunting season 的提前结束，会给其他birds更多的时间来recover.所以restriction是有利的，也就weaken了结论。

joey的推理有漏洞， B "连续很多年因为这项政策导致狩猎期提前结束=〉被捕杀得天鹅少了" 没根据，文章只说了一个相对数 five percent,绝对数的变化是推不出来的。

C "被捕杀天鹅的天鹅每年数目都在增多" 又忘了文章中的相对数 five percent，捕杀的是多了，那是因为总量也大了嘛。那剩下还活着的也多了呢，呵呵。

我也选择了C，但是我觉得C是不正确的。C说被捕杀的天鹅每年都再增加，那么如果每次都是总数的5％，那么就是说天鹅的数量每年都在增加，所以正好strength the conclusion。

而对于B，我认为消弱的力量也不行。首先对于楼上的分析不能认同，因为文中无法退出2）中“其他birds也会被捕杀”的结论，因为从头到尾根本没有提到其他bird被猎杀的可能。唯一能解释B的就是：

既然每年狩猎期提前结束，那么就是说明天鹅的总数一直在减少（隐含假设捕杀的速度不变），那么不需要drop那个policy，也可以allow the other species to recover。但是这样的反对好像不是很强，最多只能算是勉强。如果本题的结论是：“to allow the other species to recover, dropping the plicy is nesscessary",那么B就肯定对了。

the hunting season ends if and when hunting has reduced the population by five percent,表示hunting geese太多就会结束hunting,那么如果不结束hunting就表示其他种类可以recover;要削弱这个结论,可以说就算不结束hunting,也不会增加geese的猎捕因此不会使其他种类recover;

B)It has been many years since the restriction led to the hunting season for snow geese being closed earlier than the scheduled date.(很多年来hunting season都提前结束),表示很多年来geese的猎捕都提早达到5%的数量,无关;

D)As their population has increased, snow geese have recolonized wintering grounds that they had not used for several seasons.(随着数量增加,他们冬天会移居到其他季节不用的地方去),表示可能找不到它们或者hunt不了它们,因此就算不结束hunting也不会猎捕更多的geese-->削弱

以下是引用Joey在2005-11-13 11:33:00的发言：

Q11:

Some species of Arctic birds are threatened by recent sharp increases in the population of snow geese, which breed in the Arctic and are displacing birds of less vigorous species. Although snow geese are a popular quarry for hunters in the southern regions where they winter, the hunting season ends if and when hunting has reduced the population by five percent, according to official estimates. Clearly, dropping this restriction would allow the other species to recover.

当狩猎数量是总数量减少５％时，狩猎期被禁止＝〉结论，放弃这个制度可以给别的种族的鸟留下ｒｅｃｏｖｅｒ的机会（其中暗含一个过渡：放弃制度会使天鹅受到捕杀的增多）

Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the argument?

Hunting limits for snow geese were imposed many years ago in response to a sharp decline in the population of snow geese.　几年前，无关

It has been many years since the restriction led to the hunting season for snow geese being closed earlier than the scheduled date.　连续很多年因为这项政策导致狩猎期提前结束=〉被捕杀得天鹅少了=〉别的鸟类不能recovery

The number of snow geese taken by hunters each year has grown every year for several years. 被捕杀天鹅的天鹅每年数目都在增多，继而削弱即使不放弃捕猎的限制，别的鸟类也可以recovery

As their population has increased, snow geese have recolonized wintering grounds that they had not used for several seasons.

In the snow goose’s winter habitats, the goose faces no significant natural predation.

Answer: B，可是按照我以上的思路怎么也不觉得B削弱啊？

b的意思理解有误。应该是因为这项政策导致狩猎期提前结束是很多年前的事了。暗指禁令早不管用了记得讨论过了不知道在那里

以下是引用livary在2005-12-10 17:39:00的发言：

我认为选D,理由:

to be discussed...

论点：Clearly, dropping this restriction would allow the other species to recover.

B中说It has been many years since the restriction led to the hunting season for snow geese being closed earlier than the scheduled date.

所以对照黄区内容看，dropping=being closed,可是recently＝红区文字却recent sharp increases in the population of snow geese，所以dropping 看来无法decrease snow geese, 因而无法帮助other species to recover.

3。b指出，其实这个狩猎限制其实很多年没有被打破过了（狩猎量都未超过5%），所以，现在即使打破了限制，狩猎量也不一定会超过5%，故不一定会减少geese，增加bird

1) do agree with 116559, 文章说只要when hunting has reduced the population by five percent，那么hunting season 就会结束，因此，不论是提前结束还是按时结束，都会产生一个相同的结果，就是population of the snow geese was reduced by five percent. therefore answer B is irrelevant to the conclusion.

2) D [As their population has increased, snow geese have recolonized wintering grounds that they had not used for several seasons.] indicates that even the government drops the restriction, the hunters might not be able to hunt more snow geese who have already recolonized wintering grounds.

the hunting season ends if and when hunting has reduced the population by five percent, according to official estimates.根据官方统计，当打到减少了5%时，狩猎季节也结束了; 同时如果在狩猎季结束之前达到5%，则提前结束[this is teh restriction mentioned in the question]。所以如果象B所说， it undermines the argument that lift of restriction on 5% will reduce the population of snow geese.

以下是引用Joey在2005-11-13 11:33:00的发言：

Q11:

Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the argument?

Hunting limits for snow geese were imposed many years ago in response to a sharp decline in the population of snow geese.　几年前，无关

It has been many years since the restriction led to the hunting season for snow geese being closed earlier than the scheduled date.　连续很多年因为这项政策导致狩猎期提前结束=〉被捕杀得天鹅少了=〉别的鸟类不能recovery

The number of snow geese taken by hunters each year has grown every year for several years. 被捕杀天鹅的天鹅每年数目都在增多，继而削弱即使不放弃捕猎的限制，别的鸟类也可以recovery

As their population has increased, snow geese have recolonized wintering grounds that they had not used for several seasons. which means geese will expend their habitate beyond the southern region and so the increased hunting in the south will not effect geeses in other part of Arctic region.

In the snow goose’s winter habitats, the goose faces no significant natural predation.

Answer: B，可是按照我以上的思路怎么也不觉得B削弱啊？

以下是引用steveyangxt在2005-12-13 8:27:00的发言：

b的意思理解有误。应该是因为这项政策导致狩猎期提前结束是很多年前的事了。暗指禁令早不管用了记得讨论过了不知道在那里

B的意思是因为限制而导致狩猎期提前结束已经是很多年前的事情了，即已经很久都没有超过5%了。

我认为正确答案恰恰是大家都不注意的E，因为很多人认为它无关。

E是典型的它因削弱。即雪鹅多的原因在于它在其冬季的栖息地没有天敌而导致其数量增多。放开狩猎限制没有作用。

以下是引用jinni在2006-4-6 14:16:00的发言：

这道题目关键是理解B选项的意思。

B的意思是因为限制而导致狩猎期提前结束已经是很多年前的事情了，即已经很久都没有超过5%了。

所以现在是否取消限制对于狩猎的增加是没有影响的。

It has been many years since the restriction led to the hunting season for snow geese being closed earlier than the scheduled date.

我一直把这句话的意思理解反了，以为是因为限制而导致狩猎期提前结束已经保持很多年了。现在看来，现在完成时表明这件事情已经完成，也就是已经结束了，所以应该是已经很久都没有超过5%了

It has been many years since the restriction led to the hunting season for snow geese being closed earlier than the scheduled date.

be动词表示状态的现在完成是暗示延续到现在，类似于实意动词的现在完成进行时

首先原文说，Geese的狩猎期在两个条件下结束，狩猎期结束，或者狩猎量到5%

我怎么觉得B的意思是说很多年了，狩猎期一直结束的比计划的早，也就是原文说的第二个条件，狩猎量到了5%，说明人们很踊跃的狩猎。B是加强阿

"dropping this restriction would allow the other species to recover." has an assumption~~

"it has been many years since the restriction led to the hunting season for snow geese being closed earlier than the scheduled date." imply "it has been many years the population of snow geese cut down by five percent"

conclusion: the restriction is not related to the amount of snow geese ,so dropping this restriction couldn't make other species to recover~~~

B选项的意思是，在整个冬季，狩猎期提前结束已经是很多年前的事情了，也就是说现在的情况是直到冬季都结束了，5％的限额也还没有超过。也就是说，最近几年一直都是狩猎到冬季结束为止（注意，
SNOW GEESE 只是在冬天回到这个南部地区，冬天过了也就飞走了），也就是说，只要SNOW GEESE还在就一致狩猎，所以是否取消并不影响狩猎的SNOW GEESE的数量。

以下是引用dot_deng在2006-10-11 4:07:00的发言：

反对, 原句是it has been,如果是had been我觉得是 dot_deng的意思."狩猎期提前结束已经是很多年前的事情了"

我理解的是,"很多年了,限制条件导致猎取snow geese的猎季节比预订时间提前结束(led to ....season.... being closed; led sth. being done) ."意思很清楚,说的是,猎人们只用了很短的时间就消灭了5%,所以如果增加限制是有用的.加强.

我的一点思路，不对望NN们指教~（前置结束语，重心所在：））

前提：1A减少因为G增多。2.尽管H打猎，但G减到一定程度，H打猎结束（换句话说就是H减少因为G减少）

结论：打猎不受限制，A能增多（即H增多，A增多）（注意结论能判断相关无关，就是H的限制与否和A之间的关系）

A：几年前对打猎受限是为了回应极度减少的G的数量（没说关系，无关）

B：因为（拥有G减到一定数量限制打猎的）这个约束，使打猎提前结束（换句话说就是G已经减少了，所以H受限，即H减少。但G减少可导致A增加。所以结论的A减少这一结果，并不是H增多导致。有果无因，削弱）

为什么杀吧杀吧就到5%了，导致还没到scheduled date狩猎期就结束了呢，这是因为geese的数量已经很少了。

比如说，原来一共有1000个，你杀个50个才能结束，现在就100个了，那你杀5个就结束了。

所以B选项在说其实geese的数量在多年以前就开始减少了，数量已经不多了。

那你说本来geese的数量就没多少了，这狩猎的限制与否有意义么还。