ChaseDream

标题: OG12 CR 几道问题纠结得很纠结得很纠结得很 [打印本页]
作者: 慢半拍的靴子    时间: 2011-3-5 23:03
标题: OG12 CR 几道问题纠结得很纠结得很纠结得很
废话不多说了，直接上题：

84. Many people suffer an allergic reaction to certain sulfites, including those that are commonly added to wine as preservatives. However, since there are several winemakers who add sulfites to none of the wines they produce, people who would like to drink wine but are allergic to sulfites can drink wines produced by these winemakers without risking an allergic reaction to sulfites.
Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?
(A) These winemakers have been able to duplicate the preservative effect produced by adding sulfites by means that do not involve adding any potentially allergenic substances to their wine.
(B) Not all forms of sulfite are equally likely to produce the allergic reaction.
(C) Wine is the only beverage to which sulfites are commonly added.
(D) Apart from sulfites, there are no substances commonly present in wine that give rise to an allergic reaction.
(E) Sulfites are not naturally present in the wines produced by these winemakers in amounts large enough to produce an allergic reaction in someone who drinks these wines.
明白E选项是给出他因，但是不明白D错在哪里了，看到CD有资料分析说是“作者的结论只考虑sulfites和过敏的关系，不考虑其他”，可是从另一方面来说，如果酒中除了sulfites没有其他因素会引起过敏反应，那么不也会导致题中的结论正确吗？（即只要喝不掺杂sulfites的酒而改喝其他酒就能够避免过敏）？？？
作者: nightingale    时间: 2011-3-5 23:12
照你说的，D的意思是酒中“除了sulfites”没有其他因素会引起过敏反应，但是不能保证酒里面不是直接带有sulfites啊。即便不“人为”掺杂sulfites，如果红酒本身就带有致敏源和足够的量（即E想排除的问题），那他们喝了还是会过敏的。
作者: 慢半拍的靴子    时间: 2011-3-5 23:14
还有一题：
99. Which of the following most logically completes the argument?
The irradiation of food kills bacteria and thus retards spoilage. However, it also lowers the nutritional value of many foods. For example, irradiation destroys a significant percentage of whatever vitamin B1 a food may contain. Proponents of irradiation point out that irradiation is no worse in this respect than cooking. However, this fact is either beside the point, since much irradiated food is eaten raw, or else misleading, since .
(A) many of the proponents of irradiation are food distributors who gain from foods’ having a longer shelf life
(B) it is clear that killing bacteria that may be present on food is not the only effect that
irradiation has
(C) cooking is usually the final step in preparing food for consumption, whereas irradiation serves to ensure a longer shelf life for perishable foods
(D) certain kinds of cooking are, in fact, even more destructive of vitamin B1 than carefully controlled irradiation is
(E) for food that is both irradiated and cooked, the reduction of vitamin B1 associated with either process individually is compounded
做的时候先看到最后一句中的however，明白答案是要对however前的proponents说的进行反驳，但是看来看去感觉没一个像是正确答案，求大神解释一下E选项为什么正确？它哪里对前文进行反驳啦？搞不清楚逻辑关系，亦或者是我没有把这字面意思看明白？
作者: sdcar2010    时间: 2011-3-5 23:22
Irradiation alone destroys X grams of vitamin B.

Cooking alone destroys Y grams of vitamin B.

When irradiation and cooking are combined, the combined effect would destroy (X + Y) gram of vitamin B, more than the share destroyed by cooking only. In the argument, the assumption is that irradiation ONLY destroys the portion of vitamin B which would be eventually destroyed by cooking.
作者: 慢半拍的靴子    时间: 2011-3-5 23:26
LS大神，经您老人家一解释就特别清楚~~灰常感谢~~

是我没有理解E选项的含义啊。。
作者: 慢半拍的靴子    时间: 2011-3-5 23:27
对的，我漏看了一个关键字“add”

灰常灰常感谢~~
作者: 慢半拍的靴子    时间: 2011-3-6 00:20
在自己的帖子里问一个菜鸟问题：

明天起准备过第二遍OG，但是问题是，完成第一遍之后读答案的过程中由于对一些题目有了较深的理解所以不自觉也就“背”了下来，那么第二遍再做的时候不就不精确了吗？对一些题有了先入为主的印象之后，有可能会忽略题目中的一些关键元素。。

那么，第二遍怎么来比较有效果？
作者: 慢半拍的靴子    时间: 2011-3-6 00:22
照你说的，D的意思是酒中“除了sulfites”没有其他因素会引起过敏反应，但是不能保证酒里面不是直接带有sulfites啊。即便不“人为”掺杂sulfites，如果红酒本身就带有致敏源和足够的量（即E想排除的问题），那他们喝了还是会过敏的。
-- by 会员 nightingale (2011/3/5 23:12:21)


对的，我漏看了关键字“add”
非常感谢~~
作者: sanetti    时间: 2011-3-6 00:22
废话不多说了，直接上题：

84. Many people suffer an allergic reaction to certain sulfites, including those that are commonly added to wine as preservatives. However, since there are several winemakers who add sulfites to none of the wines they produce, people who would like to drink wine but are allergic to sulfites can drink wines produced by these winemakers without risking an allergic reaction to sulfites.
Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?
(A) These winemakers have been able to duplicate the preservative effect produced by adding sulfites by means that do not involve adding any potentially allergenic substances to their wine.
(B) Not all forms of sulfite are equally likely to produce the allergic reaction.
(C) Wine is the only beverage to which sulfites are commonly added.
(D) Apart from sulfites, there are no substances commonly present in wine that give rise to an allergic reaction.
(E) Sulfites are not naturally present in the wines produced by these winemakers in amounts large enough to produce an allergic reaction in someone who drinks these wines.
明白E选项是给出他因，但是不明白D错在哪里了，看到CD有资料分析说是“作者的结论只考虑sulfites和过敏的关系，不考虑其他”，可是从另一方面来说，如果酒中除了sulfites没有其他因素会引起过敏反应，那么不也会导致题中的结论正确吗？（即只要喝不掺杂sulfites的酒而改喝其他酒就能够避免过敏）？？？
-- by 会员 慢半拍的靴子 (2011/3/5 23:03:46)



楼主请仔细看题干，题干的原话是：people who would like to drink wine but are allergic to sulfites can drink wines produced by these winemakers without risking an allergic reaction to sulfites.
看见了吗？题干的结论是，people就喝这种酒就不会对sulfites过敏了。
但是D选项说什么？D说，前提是，除了sulfites之外，没有别的东西能导致过敏。其实D讨论了一个out of scope的问题！人家在讨论如何避免对sulfites过敏，你却去讨论有可能有别的非sulfites的过敏，当然是错的了！
作者: 慢半拍的靴子    时间: 2011-3-6 00:31
废话不多说了，直接上题：

84. Many people suffer an allergic reaction to certain sulfites, including those that are commonly added to wine as preservatives. However, since there are several winemakers who add sulfites to none of the wines they produce, people who would like to drink wine but are allergic to sulfites can drink wines produced by these winemakers without risking an allergic reaction to sulfites.
Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?
(A) These winemakers have been able to duplicate the preservative effect produced by adding sulfites by means that do not involve adding any potentially allergenic substances to their wine.
(B) Not all forms of sulfite are equally likely to produce the allergic reaction.
(C) Wine is the only beverage to which sulfites are commonly added.
(D) Apart from sulfites, there are no substances commonly present in wine that give rise to an allergic reaction.
(E) Sulfites are not naturally present in the wines produced by these winemakers in amounts large enough to produce an allergic reaction in someone who drinks these wines.
明白E选项是给出他因，但是不明白D错在哪里了，看到CD有资料分析说是“作者的结论只考虑sulfites和过敏的关系，不考虑其他”，可是从另一方面来说，如果酒中除了sulfites没有其他因素会引起过敏反应，那么不也会导致题中的结论正确吗？（即只要喝不掺杂sulfites的酒而改喝其他酒就能够避免过敏）？？？
-- by 会员 慢半拍的靴子 (2011/3/5 23:03:46)




楼主请仔细看题干，题干的原话是：people who would like to drink wine but are allergic to sulfites can drink wines produced by these winemakers without risking an allergic reaction to sulfites.
看见了吗？题干的结论是，people就喝这种酒就不会对sulfites过敏了。
但是D选项说什么？D说，前提是，除了sulfites之外，没有别的东西能导致过敏。其实D讨论了一个out of scope的问题！人家在讨论如何避免对sulfites过敏，你却去讨论有可能有别的非sulfites的过敏，当然是错的了！
-- by 会员 sanetti (2011/3/6 0:22:45)


有道理，其实D和C一样，都是考虑了其他因素，导致无关选项
作者: 慢半拍的靴子    时间: 2011-3-6 00:33
在自己的帖子里问一个菜鸟问题：

明天起准备过第二遍OG，但是问题是，完成第一遍之后读答案的过程中由于对一些题目有了较深的理解所以不自觉也就“背”了下来，那么第二遍再做的时候不就不精确了吗？对一些题有了先入为主的印象之后，有可能会忽略题目中的一些关键元素。。

那么，第二遍怎么来比较有效果？
-- by 会员 慢半拍的靴子 (2011/3/6 0:20:09)


自己顶一记！
作者: highyin    时间: 2011-3-28 07:47
y cannot choose A? im also confused the problem, cannot understand



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