ChaseDream

标题: OG120 没搜到，纠结了好久，NN帮忙指点一下吧 [打印本页]
作者: swimswan    时间: 2011-4-6 20:22
标题: OG120 没搜到，纠结了好久，NN帮忙指点一下吧
对于OG的解释很不理解

120. The earliest Mayan pottery found at Colha, in Belize,
is about 3,000 years old. Recently, however,
4,500-year-old stone agricultural implements were
unearthed at Colha. These implements resemble
Mayan stone implements of a much later period,
also found at Colha. Moreover, the implements'
designs are strikingly different from the designs of
stone implements produced by other cultures known
to have inhabited the area in prehistoric times.
Therefore, there were surely Mayan settlements in
Colha 4,500 years ago.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens
the argument?

(A)Ceramic ware is not known to have been used
by the Mayan people to make agricultural
implements.

(B)Carbon-dating of corn pollen in Colha indicates
that agriculture began there around 4,500 years
ago.

(C)Archaeological evidence indicates that some of
the oldest stone implements found at Colha
were used to cut away vegetation after
controlled burning of trees to open areas of
swampland for cultivation.

(D)Successor cultures at a given site often adopt
the style of agricultural implements used by
earlier inhabitants of the same site.

(E)Many religious and social institutions of the
Mayan people who inhabited Colha 3,000 years
ago relied on a highly developed system of
agricultural symbols.




Argument Evaluation





SituationRecently, 4,500-year-old stone agricultural implements have been found in Colha,a location where 3,000-year-old Mayan pottery had previously been found. Theimplements resemble other Mayan implements of a much later time that were alsofound in Colha, and they are unlike the implements used by other local cultures inprehistoric times. These recently discovered implements thus prove that Mayan culturewas established in Colha 4,500 years ago.

ReasoningWhich point weakens the argument? First, identify a crucial underlying assumption. Theargument assumes the distinctive 4,500-year-old implements must be Mayan becausethey are similar to implements the Mayans are known to have used there much later.What if there is another reason for the similarity? What if a culture that comes to analready inhabited site tends to adapt its implements to the style of the residentculture'simplements? In that case, the Mayans could have come to the alreadyestablishedcommunity of Colha at some later point, and the later Mayan agricultural tools could becopies of the earlier culture's tools.
文中的黄色字体部分不是已经否定了这种情况了吗？


AThe argument does not suggest that the Mayans used ceramics forimplements, so this point doesnot weaken the argument; it is irrelevant to it.

BSince the point of the argument is who, specifically, established a settlement in Colha 4,500 yearsago, the evidence that some unidentified people were practicing agriculture there at that timeneither strengthens nor weakens the argument.

CDiscovering how the implements were used does not explain who was using them, so thisinformation is not relevant to the conclusion.

DCorrect. This statement properly identifies the weakness in the argument that the similaritybetween the 4,500-year-old implements and the later Mayan implements may be attributed tothe Mayans' adopting the style of implements used earlier by another culture.

EThat the Mayans relied on agricultural symbols at that time is nearly irrelevant to the issue ofwhether the earlier implements belonged to their culture. To the extent that this is relevant, itvery slightly supports, rather than weakens, the argument; highly developed'suggests that Mayanshad been practicing agriculture for a long time.

作者: jy4780163    时间: 2011-4-6 20:26
你这个不空格我看着真恶心的~
作者: swimswan    时间: 2011-4-6 20:27
不好意思，不知道怎么回事，已经好了，帮忙看看吧，谢了
作者: fuzheng602    时间: 2011-4-6 20:59
4500年的更早,3000年的晚（玛雅人）,那么如果玛雅人在居住地方继承了先前居住在此地的人的传统、器具，那么使用的东西当人会像，但先前的人不一定是玛雅人
作者: dengts    时间: 2011-4-6 21:11
The stimulus only tells us that the implements designs are different from the designs of stone implements produced by other culture KNOWN to have inhabited the area in prehistoric times.Perhaps there really exsits one culture,and we don't know it.
作者: swimswan    时间: 2011-4-7 21:26
支持4楼的看法，但是这样解释还是有点牵强
作者: shaonianhe    时间: 2011-4-7 21:49
这么理解，清朝人用碗吃饭，我们现在也用碗吃饭，这有一个继承性。用碗吃饭的不一定都是清朝人，还有可能是天朝人，哈哈，楼主说呢？
作者: swimswan    时间: 2011-4-8 09:58
呵呵，谢谢你的回答
如果用这个例子的话，我的理解是：
the implements' designs are strikingly different from the designs of stone implements produced by other cultures known to have inhabited the area in prehistoric times. 实际上是在否定天朝人用过碗，不过按四楼的说的如果不知道天朝人曾inhabited the area,那么还是可以用来weaken的
作者: mia113    时间: 2011-7-29 11:41
The stimulus only tells us that the implements designs are different from the designs of stone implements produced by other culture KNOWN to have inhabited the area in prehistoric times.Perhaps there really exsits one culture,and we don't know it.
-- by 会员 dengts (2011/4/6 21:11:08)



up up ``不过出题人还真有点猥琐啊··
作者: robertwu82    时间: 2011-8-6 16:46
还是没有很懂，觉得文章黄色背景部分已经否定了D。既然other cultures known to have inhabited the area in prehistoric times 做出来的工具与发现的工具不同，就说明只有Mayan做的工具相似。
不知道A为什么错了，直接说Mayan不把Ceramic ware（这个应该是pottery一样吧）用为农业工具不也是一种削弱么。
作者: Heather_Lau    时间: 2011-8-6 16:58
A是无关选项,题干中没有说把ceramic ware used for implements.
作者: swimswan    时间: 2011-9-22 16:17
？？？
作者: surrender    时间: 2011-10-23 14:46
请问为什么a选项错了啊？是因为ceramic ware和pottery不一是同一种陶瓷吗？
作者: ndslyy    时间: 2011-11-5 12:20
我觉得是因果倒置。 题目说是M要在4500年之前到达，才让后人学习。
但是削弱可以是：这个地方本来就有这种implement，M后来是学习他才一样。
作者: sunny20111126    时间: 2012-3-6 22:07
标题: 好久了，但是我想回复一下以便以后人看，呵呵
重点在known to have......,就是说，据我们所知以前没有一种文明用过这个implement,所以我们就说这个implement是mayan，这种假设不对，虽然我们不知道但并不证明以前就没人使用，D刚好说，就是mayan继承前人的可能。所以并没有否定黄体字。
作者: shiningsmile    时间: 2012-3-7 16:00
正纠结于这道题，没找到更好的解释，只能支持楼上了。还有NN有更有说服力的解释吗？
作者: shiningsmile    时间: 2012-3-29 15:16
今天再来看这道题感觉还是有同LZ一样的疑惑，不知有没有人觉得答案D项与原文题干给出的信息相矛盾啊？
作者: plainn    时间: 2012-4-6 21:01
4500年的更早,3000年的晚（玛雅人）,那么如果玛雅人在居住地方继承了先前居住在此地的人的传统、器具，那么使用的东西当人会像，但先前的人不一定是玛雅人
-- by 会员 fuzheng602 (2011/4/6 20:59:18)


非常同意，大家注意文中的表述earliest Mayan pottery 发现在3000年前，而 stone agricultural implements 发现在4500年前，注意这两种发现是不同而且没有包含关系的材质。
接着，Moreover, the implements' designs are strikingly different from the designs of stone implements produced by other cultures known to have inhabited the area in prehistoric times.
也就是说其实这一句比较的都是stone implement，所以other culture生产的implements是和4500年前的那个作比较的，这里就产生了一个time gap

4500年前——3000年前的情况就不清楚了，中间有可能有别的culture学了4500年前的，然后Mayan又学了这个culture的。故不能推出Mayan是在4500年前就在C地的。
作者: petersonque    时间: 2012-12-7 03:10
4500年的更早,3000年的晚（玛雅人）,那么如果玛雅人在居住地方继承了先前居住在此地的人的传统、器具，那么使用的东西当人会像，但先前的人不一定是玛雅人
-- by 会员 fuzheng602 (2011/4/6 20:59:18)



非常同意，大家注意文中的表述earliest Mayan pottery 发现在3000年前，而 stone agricultural implements 发现在4500年前，注意这两种发现是不同而且没有包含关系的材质。
接着，Moreover, the implements' designs are strikingly different from the designs of stone implements produced by other cultures known to have inhabited the area in prehistoric times.
也就是说其实这一句比较的都是stone implement，所以other culture生产的implements是和4500年前的那个作比较的，这里就产生了一个time gap

4500年前——3000年前的情况就不清楚了，中间有可能有别的culture学了4500年前的，然后Mayan又学了这个culture的。故不能推出Mayan是在4500年前就在C地的。
-- by 会员 plainn (2012/4/6 21:01:38)

3000年前 pottery， mayan
4500年前stone ag的riculture implements  像mayan stone implements.
4500年前stone implements 不像已知的此处史前文明。
ls的解释看不懂。既然会学习culture，为毛“4500年前stone implements 不像已知的此处史前文明。”，而且“Mayan又学了这个culture的”？好蛋疼的题目啊
作者: Hendy    时间: 2014-12-25 00:53
shaonianhe 发表于 2011-4-7 21:49
这么理解，清朝人用碗吃饭，我们现在也用碗吃饭，这有一个继承性。用碗吃饭的不一定都是清朝人，还有可能是 ...

我靠，正解



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