ChaseDream

标题: GWD 30-32-->joe11转移 [打印本页]

作者: 润Z细无声 时间: 2006-4-19 13:54
标题: GWD 30-32-->joe11转移

Q32:

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.

答案是B。不明白啊，我选的是D。

Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the argument offered in refutation of the environmentalists’ prediction?怎么翻译呢？下面哪项，如果正确的话，可以最大程度的Undermines这个论点，该论点是用来驳斥environmentalists’ prediction。是这样翻译吗？如果是这样的话，找的就应该是支持environmentalists’ prediction的内容啊，可是怎么看D都无关啊。

作者: joe11 时间: 2006-4-19 20:53

1. This is a logic question, should be in Gmat Logic forum.

2. The question asks:

Which of the following, if true, most seriously SUPPORT the environmentalists’ prediction?

3. D: " Environmental pressures unrelated to the chemical spill " : out of scope. B is correct.

4. B: Oil spill has been 5 years only, so the effect on female turtles will take another 5 years before the environmentalists’ prediction can be proved.

作者: 润Z细无声 时间: 2006-4-19 21:01
谢谢，明白了

作者: titatita 时间: 2006-6-8 12:08

以下是引用joe11在2006-4-19 20:53:00的发言：

1. This is a logic question, should be in Gmat Logic forum.

2. The question asks:

Which of the following, if true, most seriously SUPPORT the environmentalists’ prediction?

3. D: " Environmental pressures unrelated to the chemical spill " : out of scope. B is correct.

4. B: Oil spill has been 5 years only, so the effect on female turtles will take another 5 years before the environmentalists’ prediction can be proved.

作者: angel_duyuying 时间: 2006-7-6 22:36
能再说清楚点吗？谢谢

作者: mbz 时间: 2006-7-7 00:28
which part you don't understand?

作者: titatita 时间: 2006-7-7 09:29

以下是引用angel_duyuying在2006-7-6 22:36:00的发言：
能再说清楚点吗？谢谢

文章的论证过程是这样的:化学泄漏导致鸟减少.但是5年前去那个地方产卵的鸟增多,说明鸟并没有减少.

Weaken:

B说一般鸟10岁后才会产卵,所以5年前回去产卵的鸟不是化学泄漏影响的那批.而是更早就存在没有受化学泄漏影响的鸟.从而通过让论据不成立来削弱结论.

[此贴子已经被作者于2006-7-7 9:30:35编辑过]

作者: ericspace 时间: 2007-10-8 11:26
是海龟，不是鸟

作者: dan2007 时间: 2008-3-29 07:06
up

作者: szy733 时间: 2009-2-18 14:23
up

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