Q16:
Economist: Tropicorp, which constantly seeks profitable investment opportunities, has been buying and clearing sections of tropical forest for cattle ranching, although pastures newly created there become useless for grazing after just a few years. The company has not gone into rubber tapping, even though greater profits can be made from rubber tapping, which leaves the forest intact. Thus, some environmentalists conclude that Tropicorp has not acted wholly out of economic self-interest. However, these environmentalists are probably wrong. The initial investment required for a successful rubber-tapping operation is larger than that needed for a cattle ranch. Furthermore, there is a shortage of workers employable in rubber-tapping operations, and finally, taxes are higher on profits from rubber tapping than on profits from cattle ranching.
In the economist’s argument, the two boldfaced portions play which of the following roles?
A. The first supports the conclusion of the economist’s argument; the second calls that conclusion into question.
B. The first states the conclusion of the economist’s argument; the second supports that conclusion.
C. The first supports the environmentalists’ conclusion; the second states that conclusion.
D. The first states the environmentalists’ conclusion; the second states the conclusion of the economist’s argument.
e.) Each supports the conclusion of the economist’s argument.
竟然选 c ??
''some environmentalists conclude that Tropicorp has not acted wholly out of economic self-interest....'' 这句话是Environmentalist, 而不是Economist 的呀...
请各位赐教...
The company has not gone into rubber tapping, even though greater profits can be made from rubber tapping, which leaves the forest intact. Thus, some environmentalists conclude that Tropicorp has not acted wholly out of economic self-interest.
C is indeed the best answer.
The second BF is what the environmentalists conclude (indirect reported speech, 间接引语). The first BF is what these environmentalists cite as evidence (please pay attention to the highlighted "Thus")
but economists said, '... However, these environmentalists are probably wrong. ...', obviously, the environmentalists'conclusion is different from economists'....
confused...or i misunderstand something else?...
C. The first supports the environmentalists’ conclusion; the second states that conclusion.
Both the BFs and choice C are about the environmentalists' opinion. They don't have much to do with the economist's thinking.
Tropicorp has not acted wholly out of economic self-interest.
请问这句话如何理解？
Tropicorp还不完全是自私自利的。对吗？
对吗？
对
我认为1st仍是Economist所说，只是1st被environmentalist拿来引用，并以推出结论。因此选﹙C﹚
答案C, The first supports the environmentalists’ conclusion, 我人为是对的, 但是第二句the second states that conclusion, 感觉不对呀.
这句话才应该是结论吗: However, these environmentalists are probably wrong.
Tropicorp has not acted wholly out of economic self-interest.
这句话怎么翻译？
我觉得翻译是
tropicorp 整个来看还是具有经济的自利性。
我觉得not否定了out of
对吗？
我也同意楼上的C上的第二句the second states that conclusion, 感觉不对呀.
參考: out of = from
tropicorp 不是全然出自於經濟自利行為..
however...以下經濟學家開始分析其實 tropicorp 是出自於經濟自利行為
out of 这里翻作“由于、出自”，according to 好像更符合吧
答案C, The first supports the environmentalists’ conclusion, 我人为是对的, 但是第二句the second states that conclusion, 感觉不对呀.
这句话才应该是结论吗: However, these environmentalists are probably wrong.
so, "that conclusion" is not conclusion of economist, but the environmentalists' conclusion.
And, I agree "爱维的天空"——economist say the evidence on which the environmentalists' conclusion bases.
这体我也做错了，不过C真确。一个是evidence，一个是conclusion。
C is right
The second sentence states the
conclusion made by environmentalists after they observe the fact that the company has not gone into rubber tapping, even though greater profits can be made from rubber tapping
Personal opinion~~
对于C选项，我有一个问题。
The company has not gone into rubber tapping, even though greater profits can be made from rubber tapping, which leaves the forest intact. Thus, some environmentalists conclude that Tropicorp has not acted wholly out of economic self-interest.
“The company has not gone into rubber tapping” 是第一个BF的转折，而“The company has not gone into rubber tapping” 与第二个BF为顺承关系，所以二个BF应该是转折关系。但C说的是前者support后者。
请好心人帮忙答疑~
The company has not gone into rubber tapping, even though greater profits can be made from rubber tapping, which leaves the forest intact. Thus, some environmentalists conclude that Tropicorp has not acted wholly out of economic self-interest.
“The company has not gone into rubber tapping” 是第一个BF的转折，而“The company has not gone into rubber tapping” 与第二个BF为顺承关系，所以二个BF应该是转折关系。但C说的是前者support后者。
请好心人帮忙答疑~
我同意楼主的观点，这里
ever though+BF(第一）转折，the company.... thus 一些环境学家形成了观点。。。说明这里的thecompany的这句话才是去支持后面的结论的。。而前面的ever though是转折的，应该是经济学家同意的观点啊。。。我觉得应该选A。。下面一句是经济学家的观点。。正好和ever though是一致的
taxes are higher on profits from rubber tapping than on profits from cattle ranching.
同问同问 .关于 even though ~~的理解啊
even though greater profits can be made from rubber tapping, which leaves the forest intact. Thus, some environmentalists conclude that
Tropicorp has not acted wholly out of economic self-interest.
some environmentalists由greater profits can be made from rubber tapping推断出 Tropicorp has not acted wholly out of economic self-interest.
HOWEVER之后才是经济学家自己的观点,之前都不是
答案C, The first supports the environmentalists’ conclusion, 我人为是对的, 但是第二句the second states that conclusion, 感觉不对呀.
这句话才应该是结论吗: However, these environmentalists are probably wrong.
However, these environmentalists are probably wrong.
这句话是经济学家的结论
| 欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/) | Powered by Discuz! X3.3 |