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.
B 是无关，10年怎么了？说了一个可观规律没用 C 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. 也是无关，这里不是normal conditions 另外，专家说数量减少，少了一个也是少 D 我觉得是答案，Clearly, environmentalists’ prediction that the world’s Merrick population would decline as a result of the spill has proven unfounded. 注意这里有一个 proven unfounded. 那么没化学物质，然后天敌还少了，肯定鸟就多了
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.
一开始我也选C。觉得B无关得太离谱因此有点像答案，但又想不出为什么是B。刚刚看完讨论再仔细看看题目：seriously undermines the argument offered in refutation of the environmentalists’ prediction。 而这个environmentalists’ prediction 是 the world’s Merrick population would decline as a result of the spill has proven unfounded
as a result of 这里挺关键的，点出了要驳斥的方向，即龟数量下降时是由于化学物质泄漏的影响。B刚好就是说龟是要长到10岁才来下蛋，因此五年前的泄漏事件不会对数量下降产生影响
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.
后来我反复看了原文，A major chemical spill occurred five years ago at Baker’s Beach
也就是说尽管spill的影响是延续的，但是发生在beach上，而现在来下蛋的龟龟从5年前产生spill起到现在都一直生活在海里，不在beach上，它们是10年被它们的妈妈在beach上产下的，那时beach还没有spill，所以它们没有受到影响。从而直接驳斥了Environmentalists’ prediction (that the world’s Merrick population would decline as a result of the spill) has proven unfounded. 的说法，达到undermines the argument offered in refutation of the environmentalists’ prediction的目的。
作者: billytang1980 时间: 2007-12-12 13:05
这里还有一个问题啊，就是B中
Female Merrick sea turtles begin returning to Baker’s Beach to lay their eggs when they are ten years old.
这里的When they are ten years old ,是指那些海龟十岁的时候开始产蛋，这个和五年前的Spill没有时间上的联系阿。这个好像不太懂哦！！！
