ChaseDream

标题: 请问gwd-12-2 [打印本页]

作者: oliviachen 时间: 2004-9-21 12:31
标题: 请问gwd-12-2

Q2:

Scientists are discussing ways to remove excess carbon dioxide from the atmosphere by increasing the amount that is absorbed by plant life. One plan to accomplish this is to establish giant floating seaweed farms in the oceans. When the seaweed plants die, they will be disposed of by being burned for fuel.

Which of the following, if true, would indicate the most serious weakness in the plan above?

Some areas of ocean in the Southern Hemisphere do not contain sufficient nutrients to support large seaweed farms.

When a seaweed plant is burned, it releases an amount of carbon dioxide comparable to the amount it has absorbed in its lifetime.

Even if seaweed farms prove effective, some people will be reluctant to switch to this new fuel.

Each year about seven billion tons of carbon dioxide are released into the atmosphere but only about five billion tons are absorbed by plant life.

Seaweed farms would make more money by farming seaweed to sell as nutritional supplements than by farming seaweed to sell as fuel.

我选b,但是不确定，好像d也对，指教！谢谢！

作者: kingsoft 时间: 2004-9-21 13:13

i vote for B. D is fully wrong.

if the amount of carbon dioxide released by the process of burning a seaweed plant is comparable to the amount it stored in its lifetime, as B tells us, the plan advocated in the passage to decrease the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will certainly fail.

choice D decribes a fact that necessitates the plan to remove excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. but it does not weaken the conclusion that the plan will be effective.

作者: oliviachen 时间: 2004-9-21 13:35

3q!

作者: sandy2004 时间: 2005-6-7 03:10
why not A?

作者: remona9t 时间: 2005-6-23 14:27

A. Some areas of ocean in the Southern Hemisphere

只说了南半球的某些地方不适宜种植，言外之意，剩下的地方还是可以种植的，达不到weaken的作用。

作者: afcyrus 时间: 2005-7-7 20:02

D说每年有70亿吨的CO2释放量，但是只有50亿吨的被植物吸收，这只是陈述一个现象，不代表计划会失败，说不定就是因为这个现象才要种海草，这样才能改善，而且D也没有说计划实施前后的区别，可以说是无关吧。

一点见解，请NNS指正

作者: dengpeiqi 时间: 2005-10-13 18:55
偶觉得D的答案,有点SUPPORT 的意思

作者: dujane100 时间: 2006-3-13 07:53

D说每年释放seven billion tons ，而只能吸收 five billion tons. 只是说明plant life 吸收能力的大小。而题干问plant life 是否能remove excess carbon dioxide。所以，无关。

作者: 期待蔚蓝 时间: 2006-11-6 14:49

D是加强吧？

[此贴子已经被作者于2006-11-6 15:33:31编辑过]

作者: 道光 时间: 2008-10-15 13:04

以下是引用dujane100在2006-3-13 7:53:00的发言：

D说每年释放seven billion tons ，而只能吸收 five billion tons. 只是说明plant life 吸收能力的大小。而题干问plant life 是否能remove excess carbon dioxide。所以，无关。

我觉得正是因为D说每年释放7, 然后只能吸收5，中间差了2，正好说明这个PLANT LIFE无法做到remove这些二氧化碳。

关键是：remove excess carbon dioxide是指把多余的二氧化碳彻底处理完，还是说只要处理了就行，哪怕只是处理了一部分。。。比如7-5=2，就还有2个单位没处理啊。。。算不算remove了。。。

作者: fidelio 时间: 2008-10-15 14:38
我认为D不对，因为D里面只说了plant life每年吸收5b tons，而可能恰好是因为现有的plant 结构里seaweed数量太少，所以导致吸收的不够多。也许正因为如此，需要多种植seaweed才能多吸收。从这个角度说，D不但没有weaken，反而加强了。

作者: Hystericalx 时间: 2009-5-22 07:04
那为什么C不对啊……疑惑中

作者: mars_cheung 时间: 2009-10-11 21:33
C 是无关选项啊。措施有效跟有些人改不改用新燃料没关系。人们改不改用新燃料也跟计划的成功与否没关系。

作者: elvis1984 时间: 2009-10-13 10:01

C 是否有效和人们是否愿意无关

D 文中并没有定义产出二氧化碳量和吸收相等才为effective

作者: lemodende 时间: 2010-11-10 22:18
可是B选项，虽然burn会放出同等的co2，但不是会代替一些原来燃烧其他燃料而产生的co2吗

作者: fausttao 时间: 2014-7-31 02:45
(A) This seems to suggest that the plan won’t work in some places. This weakens a little, but not enough. We can just put the seaweed farms in a place where they will grow.
(B) HEY! This suggests that burning the plants will release ALL the C02 back into the atmosphere, a serious drawback to the plan to reduce CO2.
(D) This, in a way, actually strengthens the argument…

作者: LaDuDu 时间: 2017-5-25 15:32
这个题我也做错过一次，选了D，原因是觉得在题干中的目的计划中，这个计划植物会产生7，而只能吸收5，所以该计划不可行，削弱。
改错的时候再认真读题，原文的目的是减少二氧化碳，计划是海上种植植物。而最后一句的陈述说这些植物会被用作染料是一个补充信息，暂时没有任何用处。读完选项之后，B选项的植物焚烧释放的二氧化碳的量和植物一生吸收的量一样大，那就是说明该计划有副作用或者说计划达不到效果，完全削弱。
再看D选项，第一遍理解错误，这里的7并不是指植物释放的，而是总数，所以植物即使吸收1也是有效果的，并不能削弱文章。

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