ChaseDream

标题: [求助]TT GWD-4-27??? [打印本页]

作者: hhhhhhzzzzzz 时间: 2006-9-22 15:55
标题: [求助]TT GWD-4-27???

Q27:

In parts of the Caribbean, the
manatee, an endangered marine mammal, has long been hunted for its meat. Having noted the manatee hunters’ expert knowledge
of manatees’ habits, local conservationists are encouraging the hunters to stop
hunting and instead to take tourists on boat rides to see manatees. Tourist interest is high, so the plan has
promise of achieving the twin goals of giving the former hunters a good income
and helping ensure the manatees’ survival.

Which of the following, if true, raises the most serious
doubt about the plan’s chance of success?

Many
   tourists who visit these parts of the Caribbean are
   uninterested in manatees and would not be willing to pay what the former
   manatee hunters would have to charge for boat rides to see manatees.
Recovery
of the species would enable some hunting to continue without putting the
manatees’ survival in jeopardy again.
In
   areas where manatees have traditionally been hunted for food, local people
   could easily replace the manatee meat in their diets with other foods
   obtained from the sea.
There
would not be enough former manatee hunters to act as guides for all the
tourists who want to see manatees.
To
   maintain their current income, manatee hunters who switched to guiding
   tourists would have to use far larger boats and make many more trips into
   the manatees’ fragile habitat than they currently do.

Answer:E

I choose A, I think A is better than E, even though E is weaken the plan too.
is the E is the right answer?

作者: zyzcdcdcd 时间: 2006-9-22 23:58
You can not attack“Tourist interest is high” that is mentioned above.

作者: swordghost 时间: 2006-9-24 16:30
还可以这么解释啊!学习了学习了!看完题我和楼主想法一样来着...

作者: lanyuqi 时间: 2006-11-9 23:21

这是什么意思啊, 我怎么还是不懂呢?NN们可以解答一下吗!

作者: missgmat 时间: 2007-1-25 04:13
it means the provious hunters have to work harder and it is not easy to earn "good income", right?

作者: LOUI1121 时间: 2007-1-29 22:56
E正确。
因为那个动物的栖息地很FRAGILE，大船还有多次的往返肯定回破坏哪个栖息地，那么那个动物就会没了，同时猎人也没钱赚了。所以最大程度的削弱了结论。

作者: latuan1982 时间: 2007-1-29 23:46
E...
A没有很好的结合结论的具体性和特殊性。。。
双赢。。。 A 只讲了单方面但是E 且很好地说明了不能"双赢"这个事实..

作者: chamcham 时间: 2007-6-26 16:29

a is contradicts the premise

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