Q14: Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the country and have noticed that in those built before 1930 the quality of the original carpentry work is generally superior to that in hotels built afterward. Clearly carpenters working on hotels before 1930 typically worked with more skill, care, and effort than carpenters who have worked on hotels built subsequently. Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the guidebook writer’s argument?
A. The quality of original carpentry in hotels is generally far superior to the quality of original carpentry in other structures, such as houses and stores.
B. Hotels built since 1930 can generally accommodate more guests than those built before 1930.
C. The materials available to carpenters working before 1930 were not significantly different in quality from the materials available to carpenters working after 1930.
D. The better the quality of original carpentry in a building, the less likely that building is to fall into disuse and be demolished.
E. The average length of apprenticeship for carpenters has declined significantly since 1930.
我做这题时对题目最后一句Clearly carpenters working on hotels before 1930 typically worked with more skill, care, and effort than carpenters who have worked on hotels built subsequently中的"hotels before 1930"理解成了上文指的Guidebook writer看到的那些30前的hotels,所以答案怎么也想不出.这里我想请教大家,是不是这题的意思不是很清晰呢?也许有人说如果是指前文提到的,那么应该加the或those之类的定冠词,可是我觉得不一定啊,有一篇阅读理解,第一段说reseachers 做了一个实验,第二段开头就说having finished the experiment, researchers又做了什么什么.从上下文理解两个researchers指代对象是一样的,而且第二次提到时也没有加定冠词.感觉有些时候前文出现的名词下文中再提到时并没有加定冠词,但根据上下文意思也很清楚两者指代相同,所以我不明白为什么这道逻辑题中最后一句中的"hotels before 1930"不能理解是前文提到的.多谢大家帮我看看
| 欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/) | Powered by Discuz! X3.3 |