ChaseDream

标题: GWD-8-Q38 [打印本页]

作者: anzhiying 时间: 2009-9-12 12:10
标题: GWD-8-Q38

GWD-8-Q38:

Unless tiger hunting decreases, tigers will soon be extinct in the wild. The countries in which the tigers’ habitats are located are currently debating joint legislation that would ban tiger hunting. Thus, if these countries can successfully enforce this legislation, the survival of tigers in the wild will be ensured.

The reasoning in the argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that the argument

A. assumes without sufficient warrant that a ban on tiger hunting could be successfully enforced

B. considers the effects of hunting on tigers without also considering the effects of hunting on other endangered animal species

C. fails to take into account how often tiger hunters are unsuccessful in their attempts to kill tigers

D. neglects to consider the results of governmental attempts in the past to limit tiger hunting

E. takes the removal of an impediment to the tigers’ survival as a guarantee of their survival

为啥选E

作者: anzhiying 时间: 2009-9-12 12:15

再说一句，我读完题就想到颁布了规定但不一定实施，所以选了A

现在看来理解选项有错

作者: owenwei 时间: 2009-9-12 12:30

这应该是充分条件和必要条件的问题。

Unless tiger hunting decreases, tigers will soon be extinct in the wild. --- 说明减少打猎是必须的（必要条件）。

论证说法案通过了，打猎减少了，就一定保住老虎了。（暗含的意思说充分条件）

e选项就是这个意思。

a选项不好，因为无端攻击论证中的假定。对其取非也不能推倒原论证。

作者: lotus_wy 时间: 2009-10-26 04:17
up

作者: ruimiss 时间: 2010-5-3 12:45
我想问下。这个问题到底是什么意思？？？The reasoning in the argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that the argument

这句话到底是让我们找削弱还是加强？？？？我糊涂了。

作者: dadaozei1412 时间: 2010-5-31 22:10
对呀。。。这个问题我也看得挺糊涂

虽说选对了

但多半是蒙的

作者: 棒棒dudu 时间: 2010-6-14 19:32
说的太好了！！

作者: 棒棒dudu 时间: 2010-6-14 19:32

这应该是充分条件和必要条件的问题。
Unless tiger hunting decreases, tigers will soon be extinct in the wild. --- 说明减少打猎是必须的（必要条件）。
论证说法案通过了，打猎减少了，就一定保住老虎了。（暗含的意思说充分条件）
e选项就是这个意思。
a选项不好，因为无端攻击论证中的假定。对其取非也不能推倒原论证。

-- by 会员 owenwei (2009/9/12 12:30:00)

说的太好了！！

作者: effie1986 时间: 2010-10-21 10:37
UP

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