ChaseDream

标题: 请教2道狒狒逻辑题~~~想不通呀想不通>_<... [打印本页]

作者: Rainbeauty 时间: 2011-3-24 22:30
提示: 作者被禁止或删除内容自动屏蔽

作者: cycyang 时间: 2011-3-24 23:06
试析：
117. A certain viral infection is widespread among children, and about 30 percent of children infected with the virus develop middle ear infections. Antibiotics, although effective in treating bacterial infections, have no effect on the virus. Yet when middle ear infections in children infected with the virus are treated with antibiotics, the ear often clear up.
一种病毒在儿童群体蔓延，大约30%被感染的孩子病情会发展成中耳炎。抗生素，尽管在治疗细菌感染方面有效，对这种病毒却没有任何效果。然而，抗生素对于既感染了中耳炎同时又感染了病毒的儿童，能够治愈其耳病。

B. Children infected with the virus are particularly susceptible to bacterial that infect the middle ear.
感染了病毒的儿童特别易受引起中耳炎的细菌感染。（所以感染了病毒的儿童很可能同时感染这种病菌，当他们服了能够治疗细菌感染的抗生素后，可以治愈耳病。）

作者: cycyang 时间: 2011-3-24 23:33
不太明白，但是感觉上例子是没有可比性的。以下仅供参考。

Some say that funding the mega telescope will benefit only the astronomers who will work with it. This dangerous point of view, applied to the work of Maxwell, Newton, or Einstein, would have satisfied their research and deprived the world of beneficial applications, such as the development of radio, that followed from that research.

观点：这种望远镜的研制只会使天文学家受益

思路：开展一个研究项目-----但受益群体有限-------开展的意义不大

举例反驳：这个观点很危险，如果用于那些大科学家身上，将会只满足了他们做实验研究的需求，而剥夺了这个世界受益于其应用的可能，例如之后基于他们研究的无线电通讯技术的发展。（虚拟）

思路：已有一些成功的研究----如果当时这些只是局限于研究本身而不应用----这个世界将不会是现在的样子

作者: sdcar2010 时间: 2011-3-25 07:39
121. In the stimulus, no proof or indication shows that the research on mega telescope would benefit people other than the researcher themselves. Thus, research on mega telescope cannot be compared with the work of Maxwell, Newton, or Einstein, which has many practical applications to benefit others.

作者: Rainbeauty 时间: 2011-3-25 14:46
提示: 作者被禁止或删除内容自动屏蔽

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