Helr GMAT题库周周练 Helr-CR-001 (答案和解析已放出) - ChaseDream

A. Some of ancient Elaphurus davidianus do have innate impairment on forehead.
B. The acid rain in Guatemala did not make additional damage on the fossils of ancient Elaphurus davidianus.
C. A great many Maya hunters, who frequently used the trap, lived in Guatemala.
D. Even if the ancient deer was struck by the trap, there would have been no treatment for it available in the period it lived.
E. The trap Maya used could not impair the preys to the extent comparable to that of archaeologist’s discovery

A. 一些麋鹿有天生的缺陷。这其实可以有略微的削弱，但是这一些不一定是考古学家发现的那些。所以这个选项不是答案。

B. 酸雨没有给这些化石带来额外的损坏。这个选项是一个加强选项。如果酸雨带来了损坏，就不能说明这些麋鹿化石的损坏是玛雅人陷阱造成的了。

C. 许多玛雅猎人住在G这个地方。这个与论证中的推理部分无关。

D. 就算麋鹿的头部被打击了，在当时没有任何的治疗手段。就算当时有治疗手段，也不一定会给这些鹿治疗。

E. 正确。玛雅人的陷阱打击猎物的头部，但是却不能令猎物的头部受到和发现的化石一样重的伤。这点可以削弱整个推理，因为如果受伤的程度不同，可能这些鹿就不是玛雅人捕的，这个推理也就不成立了。

Helr-CR-1

In Guatemala, archaeologists discovered that some fossils of ancient Elaphurus davidianus, an ancient deer in America, have some severe impairment on forehead of the deer. Clearly, therefore, in the period the ancient deer lived, since only the Maya used the trap that first struck the forehead of the prey, the fossils archaeologists discovered must be those of Maya’s prey.
Which of the following, if true, most weakens the argument above?
A. Some of ancient Elaphurus davidianus do have innate impairment on forehead.
B. The acid rain in Guatemala did not make additional damage on the fossils of ancient Elaphurus davidianus.
C. A great many Maya hunters, who frequently used the trap, lived in Guatemala.
D. Even if the ancient deer was struck by the trap, there would have been no treatment for it available in the period it lived.
E. The trap Maya used could not impair the preys to the extent comparable to that of archaeologist’s discovery

-- by 会员 GMAT (2012/7/2 22:11:56)

参与讨论
选E

Weaken
Premise 1: In G, archea find fossils of ancient dears: injury at forehead
Premise 2: at that time, only the Maya used the trap that injure the forehead
Conclusion: the fossil dears = Maya's prey

okay, it seems that the author assumes: the way Maya prey the dear was THE ONLY REASON for the forehead-injury found on the fossil.
When reading I notice that Premise 2 says "at that time" (original words "in the period the ancient deer lived"). There's a huge gap! What if the forehead-injury found on the fossil did not occur at that time? (For example, the fossil could be damaged at forehead over the long long history when buried underground)

A. "some ... innate impairment on forehead" - maybe... keep this on
B. "no additional damage" - wow! that was exactly what I think! BUT, this STRENGTHENS the argument!
C. again, this makes the conclusion more likely. STRENGTHEN
D. "If dear was struck by trap, no treatment available" ... If anything, this strengthens the argument by showing that the forehead-injury left untreated.
E. this strongly suggests OTHER factors take in part. consistent to my prediction.

Look back at A... oh i see!! the question says "severe impairment", but choice A does not say the innate impairment is severe. Even if the dears have innate impairment, it could also be the hunters who causes the additional impairment (to reach a "severe" level). So Choice A does not challenge the conclusion. Choice E does a great job in stating the "extent" of impairment.

Helr-CR-1

-- by 会员 GMAT (2012/7/2 22:11:56)

-- by 会员 babybearmm (2012/7/3 3:36:34)