Astronomer: Observations of the Shoemaker-Levi comet
on its collision course with Jupiter showed that the comet broke into fragments
before entering Jupiter’s atmosphere in 1994, but they
did not show how big those fragments were.
Nevertheless, some indication of their size can be inferred from
spectrographic analyses of Jupiter’s outer atmosphere. After the fragments’ entry, these analyses revealed unprecedented traces of sulfur. The fragments themselves almost certainly
contained no sulfur, but astronomers believe that the cloud layer below Jupiter’s outer atmosphere does contain sulfur. Since sulfur would have seeped into the outer
atmosphere if comet fragments had penetrated this cloud layer, it
is likely that some of the fragments were at least large enough to have passed
through Jupiter’s outer atmosphere without
being burned up.
In
the astronomer’s argument, the two
portions in boldface play which of the following roles?
Answer: C
应该不选C吧,应该选B 吧,我觉得选D阿，我做prep的时候也做到过，最后一句明显是结论阿，而第一句是支持结论的，因为它告诉了astronomer the comet broke into fragments before entering Jupiter’s atmosphere in 1994
另外用排除法也可以的，第一句是一个事实，已经证明其真实性，而要知道的只是碎片有多大，所以A,B错。
最后一句应该是结论，告诉我们碎片到底有多大，所以C,E错。
整段结论是第二句
Nevertheless, some indication of their size can be inferred from spectrographic analyses of Jupiter’s outer atmosphere.
两个黑体部分都是论据，
第二个黑体部分顶多是个中间结论。
15. (26883-!-item-!-188;#058&002985) [GWD #29-Q28]
Astronomer: Observations of the Shoemaker-Levi comet on its collision course with Jupiter showed that the comet broke into fragments before entering Jupiter's atmosphere in 1994, but they did not show how big those fragments were. In hopes of gaining some indication of the fragments' size, astronomers studied spectrographic analyses of Jupiter's outer atmosphere. These analyses revealed unprecedented traces of sulfur after the fragments' entry. The fragments themselves almost certainly contained no sulfur, but many astronomers believe that the cloud layer below Jupiter's outer atmosphere does contain sulfur. Since sulfur would have seeped into the outer atmosphere if comet fragments had penetrated this cloud layer, it is likely that some of the fragments were at least large enough to have passed through Jupiter's outer atmosphere without being burned up.
In the astronomer's argument, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?
(A) The first presents a circumstance for which the astronomer offers an explanation; the second is part of that explanation.
(B) The first acknowledges a consideration that weighs against the conclusion of the argument; the second is that conclusion.
(C) The first acknowledges a consideration that weighs against the conclusion of the argument; the second provides evidence in support of that conclusion.
(D) The first provides evidence in support of the conclusion of the argument; the second acknowledges a consideration that weighs against that conclusion.
(E) The first is a judgment advanced in support of the conclusion of the argument; the second is that conclusion.
E
I think the question in PP1 is a little different from this one. I agree that in this question, the conclusion is:Nevertheless, some indication of their size can be inferred from spectrographic analyses of Jupiter’s outer atmosphere.
so the second part is to support this conclusion, but I am a little confused about the first part- how it support the conclusion. maybe they all admit that the comet broke into fragments before entering Jupiter’s atmosphere .
| 欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/) | Powered by Discuz! X3.3 |