ChaseDream

标题: last-10-2-4 [打印本页]

作者: swimmingfrog 时间: 2004-12-7 01:31
标题: last-10-2-4

4.(D) Data from satellite photographs of the tropical rain forest in Melonia show that last year the deforestation rate of this environmentally sensitive zone was significantly lower than in previous years. The Melonian government, which spent millions of dollars last year to enforce laws against burning and cutting of the forest, is claiming that the satellite data indicate that its increased efforts to halt the destruction are proving effective.

Which one of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the government’s claim?

(A) Landowner opposition to the government’s antideforestation efforts grew more violent last year in response to the increased enforcement.

(B) Rainfall during the usually dry 6-month annual burning season was abnormally heavy last year.

(D) The inaccessibility of much of the rain forest has made it impossible to confirm the satellite data by direct observation from the field.（B）

(E) Much of the money that was designated last year for forest preservation has been spent on research and not on enforcement.

数据显示,政府作用导致deforest减少.

(B)削弱;是下大雨导致deforest减少,不是政府的作用(但文章中说是因为人为的原因造成deforest: “ burning and cutting of the forest”)下大雨并不能减少人为的burning and cutting 啊,也许下了大雨,也抵不过人为的破坏,也就不能减少deforest 了呢?

(D) 削弱;否定前提.数据不确定,所以政府作用导致deforest减少.也不确定,这不就构成了足够强的削弱了吗?

(E) 削弱原因,政府作用没到位,(钱都给了research 而不是给了enforcement),所以导致deforest 的减少

大家给我指指理解错误吧.我选(D),觉得E 也有道理.B 是正确答案,但我觉得B本身有问题

作者: lawyer_1 时间: 2004-12-7 11:33

D。说的是卫星资料不能用直接观察来证实。并非说卫星证据不真实。

E。说的是forest preservation的钱，并非原文说的enfore law 的钱，此钱非那钱。

B。下大雨导致森林生长好，所以deforestation rate 低，就是长得快，所以即使你砍，也没那麽快减少。并非导致认为burningand cutting减少，你以为下雨人就不砍森林啊。

作者: swimmingfrog 时间: 2004-12-8 00:55
thanks got it

作者: Bensontuo 时间: 2019-8-11 13:37

swimmingfrog 发表于 2004-12-7 01:31
4.(D)     Data from satellite photographs of the tropical rain forest in Melonia ...

4.

Spot the question type: Weaken ( Cause and effect )

Core of the argument:

P1: Data offered

C: As shown from data, Gov claimed its because their efforts to cause one thing happened.

Noticing points:

1. Data has to be 100% accurate and unbiased.
2. No other reason to cause the same thing also happened.

A. Support

B. Perfectly weaken ( Not because gov's effort ), but because other condition happened.

so, the reason why you are wrong regarding the inference made for option b

* (B)削弱;是下大雨导致deforest减少,不是政府的作用(但文章中说是因为人为的原因造成deforest: “ burning and cutting of the forest”)下大雨并不能减少人为的burning and cutting 啊,也许下了大雨,也抵不过人为的破坏,也就不能减少deforest 了呢?

it not that rainfall could also " against burins and cutting of the forest ", but that Rainfall itself could contribute to reducing the deforestation rate. It does not need to be against burns and cutting of the forest to stop the deforestation.

C. its called -premise booster

D. Ok, perfect shell game answer. if the necessary assumption of the argument is - data must be true, then we must to exam whether D really means the data itself is "wrong ". So, what d really said is that satellite data can't be confirmed by directly observation from the field due to the inacessibility; however, it does not necessary mean satellite data can't be confirm by the other methods, nor that the data itself is wrong.

E. you are "NOT" weakening the premises, and that is what you have been doing through out the whole argument.

Regardless of having money or not, you can't really determine whether the efforts from gov is really useless or not. How you define much ? How you define useless ? How you define the relationship between the money amount required and the degree of the usefulness ?

C.

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