ChaseDream

标题: 小弟有道题请教各位高手！！！ [打印本页]

---

作者: aqualon    时间: 2006-10-8 13:44
标题: 小弟有道题请教各位高手！！！
为什么A不是其中的一个assumption呢？

In the years since the city of London imposed strict air-pollution regulations on local industry, the number of bird species seen in and around London has increased dramatically. Similar air-pollution rules should be imposed in other major cities.

Each of the following is an assumption made in the argument above EXCEPT:

(A) In most major cities, air-pollution problems are caused almost entirely by local industry.

(B) Air-pollution regulations on industry have a significant impact on the quality of the air.

(C) The air-pollution problems of other major cities are basically similar to those once suffered by London.

(D) An increase in the number of bird species in and around a city is desirable.

(E) The increased sightings of bird species in and around London reflect an actual increase in the number of species in the area.

---

作者: pinkcutie    时间: 2006-10-8 13:51
帮顶

---

作者: helo    时间: 2006-10-8 14:04
因为题中是对local industry加以regulation,从而达到了之后的效果．这说明local industry至少是造成上述不良结果的原因之一．所以，即使不是almost entirely （Ａ），也是可以采纳最终建议的，Ａ不对．来自ＧＭＡＴ７６０的一点见解，呵呵！我不经常浏览这里，再有问题，可以ＥＭＡＩＬ：gmat_year(ａ) 163.com

---

作者: 铺路者    时间: 2006-10-8 15:05
yes!

---

作者: aqualon    时间: 2006-10-8 16:44
helo, 谢了

---

作者: helo    时间: 2006-10-8 16:53
不客气,有时间留给我你的EMAIL.直接发我信箱吧!

---

作者: hill1005    时间: 2006-10-9 00:27

这题讨论过，请搜索。E对的原因是原文给的证据是seen的BIRDS增加，而结论需要的是鸟actual increase 。E填补这个GAP。A错在almost entirely 。原文需要的假设只要工业导致鸟大量减少就行，不需要AIR POLLUTION几乎都是工业造成的。比如有些非来源于工业的污染，虽污染空气，但只要不会使鸟大量减少，则是允许的,引用他人见解发表一下

---

作者: aqualon    时间: 2006-10-9 10:24
发现来这里讨论真是不错，很温暖！

---

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

Powered by Discuz! X3.3