ChaseDream

标题: 一道cr jj求答案 [打印本页]

作者: manfromars 时间: 2007-12-26 21:30
标题: 一道cr jj求答案

Which of the following, if true, provides evidence that most logically completes the argument below?

According to a widely held economic hypothesis, imposing strict environmental regulations reduces economic growth. This
hypothesis is undermined by the fact that the states with the strictest
environmental regulations also have the highest economic growth. This fact does not show that environmental regulations promote growth, however, since ______.

those states with the strictest environmental regulations invest the most in education and job training
even
those states that have only moderately strict environmental regulations
have higher growth than those with the least-strict regulations
many states that are experiencing reduced economic growth are considering weakening their environmental regulations
after introducing stricter environmental regulations, many states experienced increased economic growth
even those states with very weak environmental regulations have experienced at least some growth

这题选啥？C?

作者: chonheinrich 时间: 2007-12-26 21:33
A

作者: chonheinrich 时间: 2007-12-26 21:35

A说出了其他经济增长的原因。

作者: mktkang 时间: 2007-12-26 21:42

为什么不选E呢？

答案是什么啊？

作者: chonheinrich 时间: 2007-12-26 21:45
E里有some,原文里有highest，依然不能排除strictest environmental regulations promote经济增长的可能。

作者: chonheinrich 时间: 2007-12-26 21:48
如果原文中用的是arose而不是promote的话，那么A和E就不分伯仲了。

作者: mktkang 时间: 2007-12-26 22:04

以下是引用chonheinrich在2007-12-26 21:48:00的发言：
如果原文中用的是arose而不是promote的话，那么A和E就不分

你的意思就是说，要否定Strictest regulation与经济直接相关，而是与教育等相关是么？从而这样起到否定的作用是么？

作者: manfromars 时间: 2007-12-26 22:43

用黑板的老师果然厉害，好像是A

作者: chonheinrich 时间: 2007-12-26 22:58

以下是引用mktkang在2007-12-26 22:04:00的发言：

你的意思就是说，要否定Strictest regulation与经济直接相关，而是与教育等相关是么？从而这样起到否定的作用是么？

呃……我不知道怎么解释，我做CR不用想的，看到了就知道是对的。我看了A其实就没看BCDE了，后来又看了E，你问我我也说不清~~呵呵，觉得挺吹挺恶心的吧，但是真的是这样的

祝火星人明天拿下800G！！！

作者: manfromars 时间: 2007-12-26 23:29
800G.......听我爸说我妈去庙里给我烧香去了。以实力是到不了800了，就看这香烧得咋样了。

麻烦chonheinrich再帮我看一题

Q3:
GWD32-Q1

The cause
of the wreck of the ship Edmund Fitzgeraid in a severe storm on lake Superior
is still unknown , when the sunken wreckage of the vessel was found, searchers
discovered the hull in two pieces lying close together, The storm’s violent
waves would have caused separate pieces floating even briefly on the surface to
drift apart. Therefore, the breakup of the null can be ruled out as the cause
of the sinking.

Which of
the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

A.
Ships
as large as the Edmund Fitzgerald rarely sink except in the most violent
weather.

B.
Under
water currents at the time of the storm did not move the separated pieces of
the hull together again.

C.
Pieces
of the hull would have sunk more quickly than the intact hull would have

D.
The
waves of the storm were not violent enough to have caused the breakup

E.
If
the ship broke up before sinking , the pieces of the hull would not have
remained on the surface for very long

以你票一眼就知道答案的神功帮我看下该选啥？谢谢

作者: chonheinrich 时间: 2007-12-26 23:34

选B

不要讽刺我呀呵呵~~

这道题做是很容易，但是对我来说读懂很难，我RC是白痴级的，用了金山词霸……

作者: chonheinrich 时间: 2007-12-26 23:36
B排除了碎片是被其他原因合到一起的可能，说明从来没断过。

作者: manfromars 时间: 2007-12-27 00:03
我选了b，但是觉得b还只是个"黑人里的小白"
风暴让碎片在水面就已经开始漂流分离 <= 水下水流没有将分裂的船体冲到一起

怎么看都没有逻辑联系...............

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