请教大家:
Which of the following most logically completes the argument below:
Although the number of large artificial satellites orbiting the Earth is small compared to the number of small pieces of debris in orbit, the large satellites interfere more seriously with telescope observations because of the strong reflections they produce. Because many of those large satellites have ceased to function, the proposal has recently been made to eliminate interference from nonfunctioning satellites by exploding them in space. This proposal, however, is ill conceived, because......
D: the only way to make telescope observations without any interference from debris in orbit is to use telescopes launched into extremely high orbits around the Earth.
E: a greatly increased number of small particles in Earth's orbit would result in a blanket of reflections that would make certain valuable telescope observations impossible.
GWD answer is E, but what about D?
however转折
文章前面都是说，炸掉坏掉的卫星是好事，后面however有weaken的意思
前面说炸掉卫星是为了排除干扰
weaken就说其实炸掉卫星反而不好
就好了
E说把卫星炸了，变成很多碎片，反而使得一些观察变得不可能
谢谢楼上的回答，可是还是没搞清楚。
D的意思不是说只有把望远镜架得高其实才可以不受反射的影响么？也就是说其实即使计划炸了大的卫星实际上也不起作用。
为啥这个选项不能起到削弱的作用呢？
谢谢各位NN！
D 和文章说得没有关系
要填得内容之前，所说得是把卫星炸掉，后面加了however，应该还是说炸掉卫星，只是意思上从前面得积极意义，到后面得消极意义。D只是说，要得到好得效果可以把望远镜放到天上去。和之前的proposal没有任何的关系。
complete文章，需要跟随文章的思路，然后看转折词。因此必须找一个和文章思路相联系的选项。
更何况，干扰因素在轨道上，望远镜也在轨道上，是否还会影响也不知道。
| 欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/) | Powered by Discuz! X3.3 |