ChaseDream

标题: [求助][讨论]gwd-29-q37 [打印本页]

作者: lawrence0707    时间: 2008-11-13 21:17
标题: [求助][讨论]gwd-29-q37

Rabbits were introduced to Numa Island in the nineteenth century.  Overgrazing by the enormous population of rabbits now menaces the island’s agriculture.  The government proposes to reduce the population by using a virus that has caused devastating epidemics in rabbit populations elsewhere.  There is, however, a chance that the virus will infect the bilby, an endangered native marsupial.  The government’s plan, therefore, may serve the interests of agriculture but will clearly increase the threat to native wildlife.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

A.      There is less chance that the virus will infect domestic animals on Numa than that it will infect bilbies.

B.       There are no species of animals on the island that prey on the rabbits.

C.      Overgrazing by rabbits endangers many of the plants on which bilbies feed.

D.      The virus that the government proposes to use has been successfully used elsewhere to control populations of rabbits.

There is no alternative means of reducing the rabbit population that would involve no threat to the bilby.

答案选的是c, 但是结论是针对的是native wildlife而不是biby. 那不是无关了嘛?


作者: silent7706    时间: 2008-11-14 00:22
“There is, however, a chance that the virus will infect the bilby, an endangered native marsupial.” 这里又说Bilby也是native widlife。
作者: ljc1202    时间: 2008-11-18 11:37

还是不明白,请NN们帮忙解答下。马上就要考试了~~~

ding


作者: jack00000    时间: 2008-11-18 12:11

Rabbits were introduced to Numa
                Island
in the nineteenth century.  Overgrazing by the

说兔子被引进到NI在这个时候,说一个O这个事情被大量的兔子的数量已经影响到

enormous population of rabbits now menaces the island’s agriculture.  The government

这个小P岛的农业。

proposes to reduce the population by using a virus that has caused devastating epidemics in

这个政府打算减少兔子数量通过一个病(什么病,能够导致在兔子里面到处都是的)

rabbit populations elsewhere.  There is, however, a chance that the virus will infect the bilby,

但是,有这样一个偶然性,这个病可能导致另一个东西(B)死。

an endangered native marsupial.  The government’s plan, therefore, may serve the interests

政府计划,增加农业收益
        
但是
        
显然的威胁了野生动物

of agriculture but will clearly increase the threat to native wildlife.

文章主题意思:说O这个事情怎么样了,影响了B

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

问削弱

A.      There is less chance that the virus will infect domestic animals on Numa than that it

will infect bilbies.

A说这块有很小的偶然性,这个病被传染在别的动物比在B的,在这个地方。主体:说这个病

B.       There are no species of animals on the island that prey on the rabbits.

这块没有动物物种期待兔子。主体:说其他动物

C.      Overgrazing by rabbits endangers many of the plants on which bilbies feed.

这个O这个事情被兔子危机了许多植物,B这个东西吃的。主体:O这个事情

D.      The virus that the government proposes to use has been successfully used elsewhere

to control populations of rabbits. 主体:病

There is no alternative means of reducing the rabbit population that would involve no threat to the bilby.


作者: jack00000    时间: 2008-11-18 12:15
以下是引用lawrence0707在2008-11-13 21:17:00的发言:

答案选的是c, 但是结论是针对的是native wildlife而不是biby. 那不是无关了嘛?

你的问题时扣了词,没抓整体意思,仔细理解就明白了。


作者: thing_12    时间: 2008-12-17 04:58

http://forum.chasedream.com/dispbbs.asp?BoardID=24&replyID=2326616&id=248303&skin=0

答案A ,扣了wildlife.


作者: goodmaneri    时间: 2008-12-18 00:59

I think that the answer should be C since the conclusion of this argument is that

"The government’s plan, therefore, may serve the interests of agriculture but will clearly increase the threat to native wildlife ".

 However,in answer c,the virus will reduce the population of the rabbits. The decreasing popular of rabbits would have decrease the overgrazing that endangers many of the plants on which bilbies feed. Therefore, the virus might serve the interest of native wildlife,too. In this situation, the conclusion of this argument might be problematic.

This is my reason to support answer "C".

Can someone explain why A is better than C ? 

 


作者: tiffany1102    时间: 2009-4-19 18:19

UP


作者: 李鸣哲    时间: 2009-5-8 15:45
我认为   结论是 serve 了农业的利益 C说endanger了那个物种吃的草  所以weaken了结论
作者: fiona_hq    时间: 2009-7-30 09:40
up
作者: fiona_hq    时间: 2009-7-30 09:41
丿
作者: zxygtx    时间: 2010-1-20 20:06
Why not E?
I hesitated between C and E, and finally choose E.
作者: drummer    时间: 2010-10-3 18:15
C: If plants on which b feed are less, it decreases the threat to b, but the threat to the plants increases. Fail to weaken "increase the threat to native wildlife".

A saying the plan will impact b more, in other words, the rabbit population cannot be controlled. It weakens "to serve the interests of agriculture". But it has not mentioned how badly it will infect b. Acceptable.
作者: lxw19    时间: 2010-10-4 19:53
为什么不选E?
作者: ripplesyi    时间: 2010-10-21 05:19
E,求解。。
作者: bobo00n    时间: 2012-4-3 14:59
不是NN,let me try...

其实文章逻辑前面NN已经讲得很明白了:

我再把题中关系用以下顺序标明:

1.Situation:
兔子太多,导致Numa的农业受大损失
2.Plan:
用某种方法,杀兔子
3.Problem:
这种方法同时伤害了另一种生物B
4.Therefore:
这种方法虽能拯救农业,但却会破坏生态系统

求削弱

A:依旧承认会伤害B,即依然落在了上述的第3点---------------------------------------------排除
B:没有兔子的天敌,岂不是更需要杀死兔子了?但是没有削弱以上任何一点----------排除
C:兔子的存在导致B生物没东西吃了,岂不是:
  a.兔子必须杀
  b.兔子不杀,B死得更快
  c.由a.b得出------兔子其实也在破坏生态系统,削弱了上述的第四点-----------------正确
D:其他国家的成果无关-------------------------------------------------------------------------排除
E:本来就没有两全的方法-----------------------------------------------------------------------正好对应了上述第四点,算是support,而不是削弱


题干还可以换成:
在国家A,由于B Party的存在,使得经济发展严重受损,于是,必须改革
但是改革,却有可能损害人民的利益
因此,改革虽然能保住经济,还是不可避免地会伤害人民利益

求削弱


如果,有人站起来说,B的存在,本身就已经损害了人民利益,那么,这句话会不会削弱呢?
作者: evacool    时间: 2012-5-18 13:20
我觉得E不是削弱也不是加强,本来就没有两全其美的办法,那么就是说杀兔子也有利弊,不杀兔子也有利弊,相当于没说




欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/) Powered by Discuz! X3.3