ChaseDream

标题: [求助]GWD30-38的答案是什么？ [打印本页]

作者: minizheng 时间: 2006-8-4 04:02
标题: [求助]GWD30-38的答案是什么？

Q38:

The ancient Nubians inhabited an area in which typhus occurred, yet surprisingly few of their skeletons show the usual evidence of this disease. The skeletons do show deposits of tetracycline, an antibiotic produced by a bacterium common in Nubian soil. This bacterium can flourish on the dried grain used for making two staples of the Nubian diet, beer and bread. Thus, tetracycline in their food probably explains the low incidence of typhus among ancient Nubians.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument relies?

The tetracycline deposits did not form after the bodies were buried.
The diseases other than typhus to which the ancient Nubians were exposed would not be affected by tetracycline.
Typhus is generally fatal.
Nubian grain became contaminated with tetracycline-producing bacteria prior to being harvested.
Bread and beer were the only foods eaten by the ancient Nubians which could have contained tetracycline.

不知道答案是什么？

大家帮忙回答一下吧，谢谢

作者: woodhead80 时间: 2006-8-27 23:01

我下载的GWD的答案是Ａ，但不是很明白，顶起来，求解．

作者: gshen 时间: 2006-8-31 20:31

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument relies?

A. The tetracycline deposits did not form after the bodies were buried.

B. The diseases other than typhus to which the ancient Nubians were exposed would not be affected by tetracycline.

C. Typhus is generally fatal.

D. Nubian grain became contaminated with tetracycline-producing bacteria prior to being harvested.

E. Bread and beer were the only foods eaten by the ancient Nubians which could have contained tetracycline.

B(other than typhus)C(fatal)E(only food)无关

A取非è tetracycline deposits form after the bodies were buried

D取非è
Nubian grain did not become contaminated with tetracycline-producing bacteria prior to being harvested

我觉得D合理，A不就是已经出现在文中了--- The skeletons do show deposits of tetracycline

Pls help!!

作者: wycg 时间: 2006-8-31 20:42

A是对的.A说的是那个deposits 不是后来生成的.如果是后来产生的话,文章说的推理不对了.

D说的东东已经在文章里说了.

This bacterium can flourish on the dried grain used for making two staples of the Nubian diet, beer and bread.

The tetracycline deposits did not form after the bodies were buried.
The diseases other than typhus to which the ancient Nubians were exposed would not be affected by tetracycline.
Typhus is generally fatal.
Nubian grain became contaminated with tetracycline-producing bacteria prior to being harvested.

[此贴子已经被作者于2006-8-31 20:42:51编辑过]

作者: gshen 时间: 2006-8-31 22:24

Thank u so much!!

I got it!!

作者: panglin 时间: 2006-12-13 13:38
有NN可以说说文章逻辑关系吗？谢谢！

作者: 罗马青年 时间: 2007-8-10 02:01

古人没得T病，今人发现其埋葬地遗留有某种抗生素的痕迹。古人常吃的谷物里（古人用这种谷物酿酒、做面包），富含这种抗生素。因此，食物里的这种抗生素帮助古人少得T病。问假设；

A：The tetracycline deposits did not form after the bodies were buried.

抗生素的遗留物不是古人死后才弄来的；

对A取非（削弱了原结论）：

抗生素的遗留物是古人死后才弄来的；

推翻了之前的推理：因为如果是后来弄来的抗生素的遗留物，那就成为伪装现场了，呵呵！那抗生素在古人生前根本就不存在，古人还想靠这少得T病吗？那就得另找古人不得T病的原因了！

作者: 阿土莎莎 时间: 2007-12-8 13:35
UP

作者: NOTALOSER 时间: 2008-11-14 15:29

当然是A。这题的前提是tetracycline是typhus的抗生素，因果关系是：因为tetracycline在N人的尸骨中出现，所以N人较低的typhus发病率要归功于tetracycline这玩意在N人的主要食物中出现。

A就是证明“因”有意义

作者: yzhao26 时间: 2009-3-13 05:21
up

作者: 路吉儿 时间: 2009-7-27 20:57

作者: jackieli007 时间: 2009-8-3 11:43

作者: jupiter410 时间: 2009-10-8 22:54
up

作者: 苏27 时间: 2009-12-11 20:53
我觉得题干说了一大堆都没有说这个抗生素和T病的关系啊。。。假设应该架个桥梁，就是说这个抗生素对T病是有抑制作用的，怎么不选B啊啊啊啊。。。。

作者: 张疆 时间: 2009-12-12 03:32
强烈认同”苏27“
识别出“tetracycline”是抗生素而非致病菌，此题就解决了。哈哈

作者: pengtiansh 时间: 2010-7-3 14:42
不知道antibiotic的意思害死人啊看得糊里糊涂的
mark一下

作者: maple1258 时间: 2011-10-28 22:32
为什么不选B呢，文中并没有指出typhus 与 tetracycline的关系啊，而B说了tetracycline只对typhus 有效，那不是一个很好的前提吗

作者: Feelalive 时间: 2013-7-4 12:33
A，排除他因

作者: 寂静岭的九尾狐 时间: 2013-11-19 14:56
(B) is definitely the correct answer.

An assumption is something that the author is taking for granted as being true. In other words, an assumption is a missing but necessary link between the evidence and the conclusion.

Therefore, the correct answer to an assumption question is something that MUST BE TRUE in order for the argument to make sense.

To summarize the argument:

Evidence:

Nubians don't seem to have had typhus; and
The grain that Nubians used in their bread contains an antibiotic.

Conclusion:

The antibiotic is responsible for the lack of Typhus.

Let's look at (B):

"Tetracycline is not rendered ineffective as an antibiotic by exposure to the processes involved in making bread and beer."

Does this have to be true for the conclusion to make sense? Definitely!

A great way to check answer choices for assumption/strengthening/weakening questions is to use Kaplan's denial test. We look at the opposite of a choice and see what impact it has on the argument.

In this case, let's consider how persuasive the conclusion would be if (B) were NOT true:

"Tetracycline IS rendered ineffective as an antibiotic by exposure to the processes involved in making bread and beer."

Well, if the brewing/baking process renders Tetracycline ineffective, then how could it possibly have been keeping the Nubians typhus-free?

Since the denial of (B) renders the argument nonsensical, (B) itself must be true for the argument to make sense.

_________________
Stuart Kovinsky, B.A. LL.B.
Kaplan Test Prep & Admissions
Toronto Office
1-800-KAP-TEST
www.kaptest.com

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