Journalist: In physics journals, the number of articles reporting the results of experiments involving partice accelerators was lower last year than it had been in previous year. Several of the particle accelerators at major research institutions were out of service the year before last for repairs, so it is likely that the low number of articles was due to the decline in availiability of particle accelerators.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the journalist's argument?
A. Every article based on experiments withparticle accelerators that was submitted forpublication last year actually was published.
B.The average time scientists must wait foraccess to a particle accelerator has declinedover the last several years.
C.The number of physics journals was the same last year as in previous years.
D.Particle accelerators can be used for more than one group of experiments in any given year.
E.Recent changes in the editorial policies of several physics journals have decreased the likelihood that articles concerning particle‑accelerator research will be accepted for publication.
看到有人问了，但还是不明白。E没问题，但觉得B、D也是在削弱啊。我是这样理解的，B和D是给出了可以让文章增加的条件，也就是说有了这些条件，文章本来是应该增加，但是没有，所以不是加速器的数量问题，这不是削弱吗？
请大家帮我分析一下吧~~
B 我觉得是无关选项 B最主要说的是average time ... wait for access，这个和最后的文章发表之间的差距还是蛮大的，而中间的推理是我们不由自主加上去的
D 太宽泛了 远离了这道题讨论的last year & previous year.
个人意见
我也有lz同样的疑惑。
OG的解释：
B A decline in waiting time would seem to promote more articles about accelerator research being written and published, not fewer.
D If the accelerators can be used for multiple experiments, then it is reasonable to expect more articles related to them, not fewer.
解释基本上相同。也就是说，B和D会导致论文数目的上升而不是下降。
而题目的意思是认为论文数量下降的原因是机器少，要削弱，那么就应该说明其原因不是机器少，而是其它。而B和D无法解释论文数量少。
但是只能通过alternative explanation来weaken么？楼主这样的推理为什么不对呢？
“B和D是给出了可以让文章增加的条件，也就是说有了这些条件，文章本来是应该增加，但是没有，所以不是加速器的数量问题，这不是削弱吗”
****update***
今天在网上找了个答案，觉得说的比较有道理。B和D的问题在于否定了题目给出的事实“the decline in availability of particle accelerators”。
***********************************
http://www.beatthegmat.com/cr-og-203-in-physics-journals-particle-accelerators-t16430.html
This is a cause and effect type question. In such questions, you need to find the alternative cause that has actually turned out the effect.
So, if we look at the question,
Our facts (premises) are:-
1. In current year, the number of articles on PA is decreased.
2. The availability of PAs to RI were also decreased due to repairing work.
Conclusion:
1. The decrease in the number of articles was due to non-availability of PAs.
Now as I stated in my previous post, you are not suppose to challenge the facts. You need to find the answer that clearly overrides the conclusion without touching the facts given in the argument.
If you look at choice (B),
(B) The average time scientists must wait for access to a particle accelerator has declined over the last several years.
It states that average time of availability of PA to scientists has been decreased, which indirectly means that this year availability of PAs has been increased. It clearly challenge our stated fact (2), which is unacceptable in CR questions. Also according to it, the number of articles should be increased as PAs are easily available. This again challenges the fact (1). Hence, though no matter how promising this choices looks to you but it is certainly wrong. This is GMAT trap.
Now look at choice (E)
(E) Recent changes in the editorial policies of several physics journals have decreased the likelihood that articles concerning particle-accelerator research will be accepted for publication.
It give you an alternative cause of declining of the number of articles (fact 1) and it does not touches or negate any of the facts stated above.
Also we are talking about the number of articles published this year. Hence recent changes means the changes done this year that could affect the number of articles publication. So there is no timing problem with this choice.
| 欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/) | Powered by Discuz! X3.3 |