1, Lyme disease is caused by a bacterium transmitted to humans by deer ticks. Generally deer ticks pick up the bacterium while in the larval stage from feeding on infected white-footed mice. However, certain other species on which the larvae feed do not harbor the bacterium. Therefore, if the population of these other species were increased, the number of ticks acquiring the bacterium and hence the number of people contracting Lyme disease would likely decline.
Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?
A Ticks do not suffer any adverse consequences from carrying the bacterium that causes Lyme disease in humans.
B There are no known cases of a human’s contracting Lyme disease through contact with white-footed mice.
C deer tick feeds only once while in the larval stage.
D single host animal can be the source of bacterium for many tick larvae.
E None of the other species on which deer tick larvae feed harbor other bacteria that ticks transmit to humans.
Is the answer C or E and why?
Is the answer C or E and why?
I didn't figure out what E is trying to say 2, The violent crime rate (number of violent crimes per 1,000 residents) in Meadowbrook is 60 percent higher now than it was four years ago. The corresponding increase for Parkdale is only 10 percent. These figures support the conclusion that residents of Meadowbrook are more likely to become victims of violent crime than are residents of Parkdale. The argument above is flawed because it fails to take into account A. Changes in the population density of both Meadowbrook and Parkdale over the past four years. B. How the rate of population growth in Meadowbrook over the past four years compares to the corresponding rate for Parkdale C. The ratio of violent to nonviolent crimes committed during the past four years in Meadowbrook and Parkdale D. The violent crime rates in Meadowbrook `and Parkdale four years ago E. How Meadowbrooks’ expenditures for crime prevention over the past four years compare to Parkdale’s expenditures is the answer C? Sorry guys, I didn'r finish GWD, so I have no idea which set is the above mentioned question from... Somebody shed somelights? The violent crime rate (number of violent crimes per 1,000 residents) in Meadowbrook is 60 percent higher now than it was four years ago. The corresponding increase for Parkdale is only 10 percent. These figures support the conclusion that residents of Meadowbrook are more likely to become victims of violent crime than are residents of Parkdale. The argument above is flawed because it fails to take into account A. Changes in the population density of both Meadowbrook and Parkdale over the past four years. B. How the rate of population growth in Meadowbrook over the past four years compares to the corresponding rate for Parkdale C. The ratio of violent to nonviolent crimes committed during the past four years in Meadowbrook and Parkdale D. The violent crime rates in Meadowbrook `and Parkdale four years ago E. How Meadowbrooks’ expenditures for crime prevention over the past four years compare to Parkdale’s expenditures is the answer C? Sorry guys, I didn'r finish GWD, so I have no idea which set is the above mentioned question from... Somebody shed somelights?
I didn't figure out what E is trying to say
2, The violent crime rate (number of violent crimes per 1,000 residents) in Meadowbrook is 60 percent higher now than it was four years ago. The corresponding increase for Parkdale is only 10 percent. These figures support the conclusion that residents of Meadowbrook are more likely to become victims of violent crime than are residents of Parkdale. The argument above is flawed because it fails to take into account A. Changes in the population density of both Meadowbrook and Parkdale over the past four years. B. How the rate of population growth in Meadowbrook over the past four years compares to the corresponding rate for Parkdale C. The ratio of violent to nonviolent crimes committed during the past four years in Meadowbrook and Parkdale D. The violent crime rates in Meadowbrook `and Parkdale four years ago E. How Meadowbrooks’ expenditures for crime prevention over the past four years compare to Parkdale’s expenditures is the answer C? Sorry guys, I didn'r finish GWD, so I have no idea which set is the above mentioned question from... Somebody shed somelights?
The violent crime rate (number of violent crimes per 1,000 residents) in Meadowbrook is 60 percent higher now than it was four years ago. The corresponding increase for Parkdale is only 10 percent. These figures support the conclusion that residents of Meadowbrook are more likely to become victims of violent crime than are residents of Parkdale.
The argument above is flawed because it fails to take into account
A. Changes in the population density of both Meadowbrook and Parkdale over the past four years.
B. How the rate of population growth in Meadowbrook over the past four years compares to the corresponding rate for Parkdale
C. The ratio of violent to nonviolent crimes committed during the past four years in Meadowbrook and Parkdale
D. The violent crime rates in Meadowbrook `and Parkdale four years ago
E. How Meadowbrooks’ expenditures for crime prevention over the past four years compare to Parkdale’s expenditures
is the answer C?
Sorry guys, I didn'r finish GWD, so I have no idea which set is the above mentioned question from...
Somebody shed somelights?
，四年了， 这个帖子都没有人会？| 欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/) | Powered by Discuz! X3.3 |