ChaseDream

标题: T-3-21 [打印本页]

作者: 笨笨可可 时间: 2008-7-24 14:08
标题: T-3-21

T-3-Q21.

Driving the steep road to the mountaintop Inca ruins of Machu Picchu is potentially dangerous and hiking there is difficult. Now the Peruvian government is installing a cable car that will make access much easier, and hence results in a large increase in tourisms. However, since the presence of large numbers of tourists tends to accelerate the deterioration of a site, installation of a cable car is certain to result in harm to the ruins.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously calls into question the argument?

A. The daily number of tourists that are expected to take the cable car to Machu Picchu is smaller than the original resident

B. The construction of the cable car terminal at Machu Picchu will require the use of potentially damaging heavy machinery at the site.

C. Machu Picchu is already one of the most popular tourist sites in Peru

D. Natural weathering will continue to be a more significant cause of the deterioration of Machu Picchu than tourist traffic—

E. The cable car will replace the tour buses whose large wheels and corrosive exhaust at present do significant damage to the site.

关于D和E的反思。

我是这么理解的。

D说自然侵蚀比旅游交通更是一个破坏名声古迹的原因。那么也就是说承认了缆车也是有破坏的，只是没有自然寝室的厉害，所以没有削弱。

E说了缆车代替了旅游巴士，这个旅游巴士的大轮胎和尾气对于古迹地址破坏很大，也就是说也承认了缆车的破坏，也同时承认了旅游巴士的破坏，那效果不是D和E一样了吗？

请指教。。

作者: rockmax 时间: 2008-7-24 16:52

答案是E 吧,

你已经分析的很清晰了,

D没有削弱

E 旅游巴士的大轮胎和尾气对于古迹地址破坏很大, 装了缆车就减少了旅游巴士的破坏,

关键是大轮胎和尾气 / 游客增加这两个那个对环境的破坏大.

显然前者significant> tend to 这样一来, 减少的破坏多, 增加的破坏少, 总量还是少了. WEAKEN

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