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.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the argument?
我选了C，，实在是没有看懂，时间压力只好乱选了一个
请细读题干。当这种鸟的数量减少了5%的时候，狩猎季节就结束。--------这是以前的限制。
C说，自这个狩猎限制实施多年以来，人们实际上总是提前开始狩猎季节，这个judgement等价于：以前该鸟每年被杀远不止5%，所以就相当于这个restriction没有生效过，那么就是说，你取不取消这个限制都无所谓，也即杀再多的该鸟也不能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.
翅膀同学说的，应该是B选项吧？
可是B的意思，好像是说提前结束，而不是提前开始啊。。。
snow geese比较厉害，威胁北极其它得鸟，还吃其它得鸟，逐渐代替了不强壮得鸟。
现在说再南方他们过冬得地方，人们会进行狩猎。专打这种鸟。
但是，根据官方估计，当snow geese这种鸟被打得数量减少了5％的时候，狩猎季节就结束了。
说如果不限制这5％呢，其它的鸟就能恢复了。－－－意思是说5％太少了，其它的鸟还是会被snow geese这种鸟威胁甚至吃掉。
问weaken，也就是说不能去掉这样的限制，或者说去掉这样的限制没有用，或者没有意义
C说，被打掉的snow geese的数量，这几年已经持续上升了。意思是猎人们早就不管你这个什么官方的估计了，打掉的snow geese的数量早就超过5％了，但是没说结果，结果怎么样？其它鸟恢复了数量了吗？其实由于snow geese这种鸟得数量疯长，5％得绝对个体数量也是增长得。这个选项没什么意义
B，说已经很多年了，大家早早的结束了狩猎。根据文章说得，打到5％下降，就结束狩猎了。说明什么呢？说明早早的就打到了5％这个数量了。这又说明什么呢？说明snow geese这种鸟的数量已经不像以前那么多了。因为如果snow geese这种鸟多的话，要打到5％不该很早结束，起码得打满预定得时间。因此，既然，已经很多年了snow geese这种鸟数量已经少了，那么去掉这样得限制来使得其它鸟数量回升就显得没有意义了，因为snow geese这种鸟数量少了，其它鸟得数量就肯定能回升了
这题目很容易选C，B太绕
谢谢, gonghao
上网查了这么久的这题目就你说的最清楚了.随便请教另一题,就是它的上一题:
Press Secretary: Our critics claim that the President’s recent highway project cancellations demonstrate a vindictive desire to punish legislative districts controlled by opposition parties. They offer as evidence the fact that 90 percent of the projects canceled were in such districts. But all of the canceled projects had been identified as wasteful in a report written by 因为是被respected nonpartisan auditors. So the President’s choice was clearly motivated by 所以sound budgetary policy, not partisan politics.
Which of the following is an assumption on which the press secretary’s argument depends?
A. Canceling highway projects was not the only way for the President to punish legislative districts controlled by opposition parties.
B. The scheduled highway projects identified as wasteful in the report were not mostly projects in districts controlled by the President’s party.
C. The number of projects canceled was a significant proportion of all the highway projects that were to be undertaken by the government in the near future.
D. The highway projects canceled in districts controlled by the President’s party were not generally more expensive than the projects canceled in districts controlled by opposition parties.
E. Reports by nonpartisan auditors are not generally regarded by the opposition parties as a source of objective assessments of government projects.
我认为要反对是secretary’s argument ,secretary论证过程中的矛盾点是 nonpartisan auditors和 not partisan politics的关系,所以E选项是对的,但是答案给出的是C,请教你的高见.
上面这题选B
取非削弱
对B取非，绝大多数被取消的projects是在总体那个党的地盘上，那么这样的批评的前提不存在啊。如果总统自己取消自己的地盘上的projects也要被骂，真是太没天理了。上面的argument被削弱
根据ETS给出的assumption的解释，取非使结论不成立的就是了。
这样的not+weaken的做法，越来越流行，这样的assumption也不再是简单的架桥就能解决的，因此在遇到assumption题目的时候，脑子里还是蹦一根玄，看到not就要意识到可能是答案。
http://forum.chasedream.com/dispbbs.asp?BoardID=24&ID=74306&replyID=&skin=1
这个可以给你做参考
下次LZ能否把题号也写上，在标题中注明题目的出处，以方便后人查询
谢谢
非常感谢你的解答,高手,所的真清楚.
我以后一定记得写好题号.
我能不能再请问以下两道题目
GWD-20
Q14:
Certain politicians in the country of Birangi argue that a 50 percent tax on new automobiles would halt the rapid increase of automobiles on Birangi’s roads and thereby slow the deterioration of Birangi’s air quality. Although most experts agree that such a tax would result in fewer Birangians buying new vehicles and gradually reduce the number of automobiles on Birangi’s roads, they contend that it would have little impact on Birangi’s air-quality problem.
Which of the following, if true in Birangi, would most strongly support the experts’ contention about the effect of the proposed automobile tax on Birangi’s air-quality problem?
GWD-20
Q17:
Of patients over 65 years old who survived coronary bypass surgery—a procedure widely prescribed for people with heart disease—only 75 percent benefited from the surgery. Thus it appears that for one in four such patients, the doctors who advised them to undergo this surgery, with its attendant risks and expense, were more interested in an opportunity to practice their skills and in their fee than in helping the patient.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the argument?
非常感激每一位参与讨论的战友,请多指教.同时祝大家靠出好成绩.
楼上的解释是不是说反了？原文说这个restriction有助于控制、减少该鸟从而帮助其他鸟thrive，weaken就是说这个restriction无法起到这个作用。
B说5％的限制与以前整个hunting season相比后者打的更多，现在有这个restriction反而变相保护了该鸟。
说的不对的请指教。
楼上的解释是不是说反了？原文说这个restriction有助于控制、减少该鸟从而帮助其他鸟thrive，weaken就是说这个restriction无法起到这个作用。
B说5％的限制与以前整个hunting season相比后者打的更多，现在有这个restriction反而变相保护了该鸟。
说的不对的请指教。
restriction有助于控制、减少该鸟－－－－－－但是现在得鸟已经很少了，不需要进行这样得restriction，这样的话restriction没有什么意义。
B：It has been many years since the restriction led to the hunting season for snow geese being closed earlier than the scheduled date.说已经很多年了，狩猎snow geese 的季节比规定的时间结束的早。说明大家早早的就打满了5％。说明数量少了。
| 欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/) | Powered by Discuz! X3.3 |