ChaseDream

标题: 请教prep1-98 请NN版主lawer解答~ [打印本页]

作者: xxxyyyzzz1 时间: 2009-4-26 17:37
标题: 请教prep1-98 请NN版主lawer解答~

98. (32682-!-item-!-188;#058&006783)

Early in the twentieth century, Lake
Konfa became very polluted. Recently fish populations have recovered as release of industrial pollutants has declined and the lake’s waters have become cleaner. Fears are now being voiced that the planned construction of an oil pipeline across the lake’s bottom might revive pollution and cause the fish population to decline again. However, a technology for preventing leaks is being installed. Therefore, provided this technology is effective, those fears are groundless.

The argument depends on assuming which of the following?

A. Apart from development related to the pipeline, there will be no new industrial development around the lake that will create renewed pollution in its waters.

B. There is no reason to believe that the leak-preventing technology would be ineffective when installed in the pipeline in Lake
Konfa.

C. The bottom of the lake does not contain toxic remnants of earlier pollution that will be stirred into the water by pipeline construction.

D. Damage to the lake’s fish populations would be the only harm that a leak of oil from the pipeline would cause.

E. The species of fish that are present in Lake
Konfa now are the same as those that were in the lake before it was affected by pollution.

答案是C，明白。

但似乎A，D都是排除其他原因的选项，为什么不能选呢？

谢谢~

[此贴子已经被作者于2009-4-26 17:37:54编辑过]

作者: crystal007 时间: 2009-4-26 21:13

我不是lawyer拉

Fears are now being voiced that the planned construction of an oil pipeline across the lake’s bottom might revive pollution and cause the fish population to decline again

A 题目中的fear是指pipeline的建造会引起revived pollution.结论是说假设technology effective,那么fears是groundless.即只要installation of the new technology能effective，那么就不会有revived pollution，fears就是groundless.对A取非，即把no去掉，即是Apart from development related to the pipeline, there will be new industrial development around the lake that will create renewed pollution in its waters.讨论pipeline之外的污染源无意义，管它怎样都不会影响结论成立阿

D不管是不是only harm题目是在讨论the development of the pipeline会引起revived harms(即pollution),不在乎harms的构成是怎样阿

希望你满意，同时盼望版主lawyer的解答。

作者: xxxyyyzzz1 时间: 2009-4-27 09:26
谢谢~
关于D的解释还不是很明白。
可不可以这么理解，harm可以来自管道，可以来自管道以外的东西。
那么根据题目排除了来自管道以外的东西，但是来自管道的可以使漏油，也可以像C所说的那样，引起其它的污染。
如果是only harm，那就排除了管道可以带来的其他污染，那不是就成立了么？

不好意思，菜鸟我比较迟钝。。。

作者: crystal007 时间: 2009-4-27 09:50

D. Damage to the lake’s fish populations would be the only harm that a leak of oil from the pipeline would cause.

说漏油造成的唯一harm是对lake's fish population的伤害，反之就是对其它也有伤害，譬如ecological environment. 不是对lake's fish population的伤害只是由漏油造成的。

作者: xxxyyyzzz1 时间: 2009-4-27 09:59
这么说好像明白了
可能是意思理解的问题...是对鱼群的only harm，不是鱼群减少的唯一原因。

作者: sprins 时间: 2009-9-9 20:44

以下是引用crystal007在2009/4/26 21:13:00的发言：

A 题目中的fear是指pipeline的建造会引起revived pollution.

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