1. (24179-!-item-!-188;#058&000705)
Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the argument?
(A) Confirming that the shungite genuinely contained fullerenes took careful experimentation.
(B) Some fullerenes have also been found on the remains of a small meteorite that collided with a spacecraft.
(C) The mineral shungite itself contains large amounts of carbon, from which the fullerenes apparently formed.
(D) The naturally occurring fullerenes are arranged in a previously unknown crystalline structure.
(E) Shungite itself is formed only under distinctive conditi
答案D，我選B
44. (33799-!-item-!-188;#058&007092)
In countries in which new life-sustaining drugs cannot be patented, such drugs are sold at widely affordable prices; those same drugs, where patented, command premium prices because the patents shield patent-holding manufacturers from competitors. These facts show that future access to new life-sustaining drugs can be improved if the practice of granting patents on newly developed life-sustaining drugs were to be abolished everywhere.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?
(A) In countries in which life-sustaining drugs cannot be patented, their manufacture is nevertheless a profitable enterprise.
(B) Countries that do not currently grant patents on life-sustaining drugs are, for the most part, countries with large populations.
(C) In some countries specific processes for the manufacture of pharmaceutical drugs can be patented even in cases in which the drugs themselves cannot be patented.
(D) Pharmaceutical companies can afford the research that goes into the development of new drugs only if patents allow them to earn high profits.
(E) Countries that grant patents on life-sustaining drugs almost always ban their importation from countries that do not grant such patents.
答案D，我選C
這兩題在語意上就有點模糊不太懂，希望有人可以幫我解釋一下這兩題的意思！謝謝
１我也选Ｂ
盼ＮＮ
同盼~我也不懂啊
第一题的d对结论should give geologists a test case for evaluating hypotheses about the state of the Earth's crust at the time these naturally occurring fullerenes were formed.的完全削弱，因为这个物质是测量是很难的所以may be can not use for evaluating hypotheses，而b只是部分削弱。我开始也把d排除了，也错了。但想想答案才记得d削弱结论的方法最彻底
第二题则是对These facts show that future access to new life-sustaining drugs can be improved的反对，因为没钱去研发，谈何improve。
这两条题都有一个共同点，针对结论。
Although fullerenes--spherical molecules made entirely of carbon--were first found in the laboratory, they have since been found in nature, formed in fissures of the rare mineral shungite. Since laboratory synthesis of fullerenes requires distinctive conditions of temperature and pressure, this discovery should give geologists a test case for evaluating hypotheses about the state of the Earth's crust at the time these naturally occurring fullerenes were formed.
尽管F(成分完全是碳的球型分子)首先被在实验室发现，但是天然的F已经被发现了,由一种稀有的S矿石的分裂形成的。
因为实验室合成F需要特殊的温度和压力条件，这个发现给地质学者一种实验案例去评估一种假设，关于F被自然形成的时候，地壳的状态的假设
简化理解为，因为发现了S,所以可以评估自然形成F的地壳状态
Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the argument?
(A) Confirming that the shungite genuinely contained fullerenes took careful experimentation.（无关）
(B) Some fullerenes have also been found on the remains of a small meteorite that collided with a spacecraft. （a small meteorite与
S和自然形成F的地壳状态无关）
(C) The mineral shungite itself contains large amounts of carbon, from which the fullerenes apparently formed.（
Contains carbon与
S和自然形成F的地壳状态无关）
(D) The naturally occurring fullerenes are arranged in a previously unknown crystalline structure.
(E) Shungite itself is formed only under distinctive conditions.
D是怎么推理的呢?
E 为什么不对？既然形成S的条件就很难，那评估自然形成F的地壳状态不就更难，不就是削弱吗？
不明白，请教NN，急问，谢谢
针对第一题
选项D说，自然形成的F,晶体结构是以一种原先不知道的方式排布的。
连同原先说F是首先在实验室中制造出来的，这就说明自然界的F和实验室制造的F是不同的，形成条件有可能完全不同！这样一来，根据实验室制造F的条件环境作依据来分析地壳的状态，就毫无意义了。
这里面其实还是要借用一些物理化学的知识，才会清楚晶体排列方式不同实际上是不同的物质尤其是形成条件会不相同。
针对第一题
选项D说，自然形成的F,晶体结构是以一种原先不知道的方式排布的。
连同原先说F是首先在实验室中制造出来的，这就说明自然界的F和实验室制造的F是不同的，形成条件有可能完全不同！这样一来，根据实验室制造F的条件环境作依据来分析地壳的状态，就毫无意义了。
这里面其实还是要借用一些物理化学的知识，才会清楚晶体排列方式不同实际上是不同的物质尤其是形成条件会不相同。
非常感谢，有那么一点懂了。似乎D选项是在强调两种东西不同，所以一个的条件而推出另一个的条件所以不成立，感觉是这样，但愿对。
那么E为什么不对呢？即提到了S又在说condition ,不很好吗？
搞清楚问题先：问题是让你找出能够令argument意义被削弱的一个statement/fact.
再看argument本身：实验室制造F的条件，可以拿来参考评估自然界中存在F的底层的特定历史时期的环境条件
关键点在于以实验室的制造条件作参考来推断自然条件。这不是难易的问题，而是可不可以参考的问题。
S怎么来跟S怎么变成F的其实毫无关系，相当于两个独立事件。
谢谢LS,
我知道我的问题出在哪儿了。我在读题的时候把this discovery理解为S的巴发现，实际上they have since been found in nature, formed in fissures of the rare mineral shungite这句话强调的是found in nature而不是formed...S.谢谢
Although fullerenes--spherical molecules made entirely of carbon--were first found in the laboratory, they have since been found in nature, formed in fissures of the rare mineral shungite. Since laboratory synthesis of fullerenes requires distinctive conditions of temperature and pressure, this discovery should give geologists a test case for evaluating hypotheses about the state of the Earth's crust at the time these naturally occurring fullerenes were formed.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the argument?
推理过程：fullerenes在实验室和自然环境中都存在
因为laboratory synthesis of fullerenes要求distinctive conditions，因此可以用来推断自然中形成fullerenes的地壳的状态。
推理是由实验可以推自然状态，答案一定要讲实验和自然联系到一起
(A) Confirming that the shungite genuinely contained fullerenes took careful experimentation.
只是说确定自然中含有fullerenes需要认真实验，属于说东道西
(B) Some fullerenes have also been found on the remains of a small meteorite that collided with a spacecraft.
说别的东西上也有fullerenes和文章推理无关，属于无关新变量
(C) The mineral shungite itself contains large amounts of carbon, from which the fullerenes apparently formed.
只是说fullerenes怎样形成的，没有把实验和自然建立联系，属于说东道西
(D) The naturally occurring fullerenes are arranged in a previously unknown crystalline structure.
正确，关键词unknown说明在实验室是不可知的，所以无法用实验推自然
(E) Shungite itself is formed only under distinctive conditions.
文章说fullerenes，Shungite只是fullerenes存在的一个载体，和结论无关属于说东道西
这道题主要是B、D的混淆。
个人感觉更准确的是说：
B答案是部分否定，B属于他因，即其他地方也能形成F，所以说没法拿实验室和自然界做简单类比；
但D选项更加彻底和直接，直接说实验室里形成的F和自然界的不一样，所以根本就没法做简单类比了。
所以比较来看D比B好，如果没有D这么好的选项，B也勉强凑合。
个人观点，to discuss
| 欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/) | Powered by Discuz! X3.3 |