11. “If the forest continues to disappear at its present pace, the koala will approach extinction,” said the biologist.
“So all that is needed to save the koala is to stop deforestation,” said the politician.
Which one of the following statements is consistent with the biologist’s claim but not with the politician’s claim?
(A) Deforestation continues and the koala becomes extinct.
(B) Deforestation is stopped and the koala becomes extinct.
(C) Reforestation begins and the koala survives.
(D) Deforestation is slowed and the koala survives.
(E) Deforestation is slowed and the koala approaches extinction.
我选的是D，请教为什么是B对？谢谢！！！
论坛的搜索太简陋了, 可能是我不会用吧. 如果搜索好, 很多东西不用手工整理的. 我只在总结里找到这个.
A: 没有问题啊. 从逻辑关系的角度分析:
Biologist: forest disappear (A)--> extinction (B)
Politician: stop deforestation (非A)--> no extinction (非B)
两个论题是不同的, 相当与互为否命题.
B对. stop deforestation, extinction. 按politician的逻辑是不可能发生的, 因为非A-->非B. 但biologist的逻辑依然可以成立. 当A-->B, 非A might or might not lead to 非B
我的意见, 两个不是简单否命题(come on COWS)
Bi forest continues to disappear at its present pace(faster or slower may or may not change the situation, eventhough we think faster is worse)
deforestration at this pace -> may extinct
pol: stop deforestation -> koala surive
D doesn't contrast politician's view.
Deforestation is slowed (perhaps to a level that it stops) and the koala survives.
only B, E confuse me.
use the explanation in quotation, B is correct.
think about the PACE issue, E is out.
谢谢指点，这样一用方法就觉得很清楚了！
| 欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/) | Powered by Discuz! X3.3 |