标题: OG10-140(没问过) [打印本页] 作者: jessicaxier 时间: 2011-1-16 02:59 标题: OG10-140(没问过) 140. A report on acid rain concluded, “ Most forests in Canada are not being damaged by acid rain.” Critics of the report insist the conclusion be changed to, “Most forests in Canada do not show visible symptoms of damage by acid rain, such as abnormal loss of leaves, slower rates of growth, or higher mortality.”
Which of the following, if true, provides the best logical justification for the critics’ insistence that the report’s conclusion be changed?
(A) Some forests in Canada are being damaged by acid rain. (B) Acid rain could be causing damage for which symptoms have not yet become visible. (C) The report does not compare acid rain damage to Canadian forests with acid rain damage to forests in other countries. (D) All forests in Canada have received acid rain during the past fifteen years. (E) The severity of damage by acid rain differs from forest to forest.
答案是B 我只是想问一下这个, 它的问题怎么翻译, 我怎么觉得是, 以下选项哪个最支持批判者所说的,该报道的结论需要被改正?作者: sdcar2010 时间: 2011-1-16 03:23
Translating GMAT questions into Chinese is a waste of time. Just understand their meanings in English, then reply in English as well.作者: annabananabobo 时间: 2011-1-16 07:24
或者不要逐字逐句的翻译，我觉得它的意思是说 为啥这帮批评者们执意要求改动此report说法作者: 20110102 时间: 2011-1-23 01:41
Which of the following, if true, provides the best logical justification for the critics’ insistence that the report’s conclusion be changed?