ChaseDream
标题: 问OG-132 A与C分辨不出来 补上题目 [打印本页]
作者: MWY 时间: 2003-7-25 21:46
标题: 问OG-132 A与C分辨不出来 补上题目
132. Passengers must exit airplanes swiftly after accidents, since gases released following accidents are toxic to humans and often explode soon after being released. In order to prevent passenger deaths from gas inhalation, safety officials recommend that passengers be provided with smoke hoods that prevent inhalation of the gases.
Which of the following, if true, constitutes the strongest reason not to require implementation of the safety officials' recommendation?
(A) Test evacuations showed that putting on the smoke hoods added considerably to the overall time it took passengers to leave the cabin.
(B) Some airlines are unwilling to buy the smoke hoods because they consider them to be prohibitively expensive.
(C) Although the smoke hoods protect passengers from the toxic gases, they can do nothing to prevent the gases from igniting.
(D) Some experienced flyers fail to pay attention to the safety instructions given on every commercial flight before takeoff.
(E) In many airplane accidents, passengers who were able to reach emergency exits were overcome by toxic gases before they could exit the ariplane.
A 中“added time ittook passengers to leave the cabin”说的是增加了乘客逃出去的时间。
C 中“they can do nothing to prevent the gasses from igniting”说的是hoods无法制止气体燃烧爆炸。
不都是就文中的“and often explode soon after being released.”而反对officials的观点吗？
答案中对C为什么错的解释没看懂。
作者: jerry_link 时间: 2003-7-25 23:30
增加逃出去的时间是负作用
无法阻止爆炸是无作用（也就是既没积极但也没有相反的影响）
当然应该选A,它非但没有益处还带来坏的影响
作者: MWY 时间: 2003-7-26 22:51
谢谢，明白了。
作者: albert 时间: 2003-7-27 00:26
以下是引用MWY在2003-7-25 21:46:00的发言：132. Passengers must exit airplanes swiftly after accidents, since gases released following accidents are toxic to humans and often explode soon after being released. In order to prevent passenger deaths from gas inhalation, safety officials recommend that passengers be provided with smoke hoods that prevent inhalation of the gases.
Which of the following, if true, constitutes the strongest reason not to require implementation of the safety officials' recommendation?
(A) Test evacuations showed that putting on the smoke hoods added considerably to the overall time it took passengers to leave the cabin.
(B) Some airlines are unwilling to buy the smoke hoods because they consider them to be prohibitively expensive.
(C) Although the smoke hoods protect passengers from the toxic gases, they can do nothing to prevent the gases from igniting.
(D) Some experienced flyers fail to pay attention to the safety instructions given on every commercial flight before takeoff.
(E) In many airplane accidents, passengers who were able to reach emergency exits were overcome by toxic gases before they could exit the ariplane.
A 中“added time ittook passengers to leave the cabin”说的是增加了乘客逃出去的时间。
C 中“they can do nothing to prevent the gasses from igniting”说的是hoods无法制止气体燃烧爆炸。
不都是就文中的“and often explode soon after being released.”而反对officials的观点吗？
答案中对C为什么错的解释没看懂。
[此贴子已经被作者于2003-7-26 11:45:31编辑过]
notice the evidence, conclusion and the relation between the evidence and conclusion...
here the target of the method is to prevent passenger deaths from gas inhalation
therefore, choice C is out of scope..
because "prevent the gases from igniting" is not the target..
focusing on the target is the key to solve this problem.
作者: MWY 时间: 2003-7-27 08:46
如果target是 prevent passenger deaths from gas inhalation的话，那么A不也是out of scope
了吗？
a 中“added time ittook passengers to leave the cabin”说的是增加了乘客逃出去的时间，因为题目中“explode soon after being released.“是说气体释放后会迅速爆炸，所以hood会使乘客在气体爆炸前没能逃出去。
题目中不单有“gases are toxic to humans“，还有“explode soon after being released.“这两个用and连接是并列的关系。a和c都是就后者而反对。
对 jerry_link 的解释，我又想了很久，还有一点不明，“无法阻止爆炸是无作用（也就是既没积极但也没有相反的影响）”，可题目里说气体释放后会迅速爆炸，那么hood的作用还是没解决根本性问题。与a选项相比较，只不过五十步笑百步而已。
作者: coolgmat 时间: 2003-8-8 05:19
The question is to find the strongest reason not to require implementation of the safety officials' recommendation. So, we expect to find that the recommendation won't work as the officals said or they will arise other problems.
Choice C confirms that the hoods can prevent the inhalation of the toxic gases, consistent with the official's recommendation. But Choice A states that the solution will endanger the passenger by longer delay.
作者: Lorena 时间: 2003-8-9 14:07
个人看法：
原文说： 事故后乘客必须快速离开应为气体有毒且会很快爆炸。 建议使用hood来防止吸入气体。
选项A， 用hood会延长离开所需时间 ---削弱原文点出offical建议的缺陷
选项C，用hood能防止气体吸入（支持原文official的看法），却不能阻燃（原文并未对能否阻燃作做阐述，且此处不应该过多使用个人的推理）
作者: cranberry 时间: 2003-8-9 21:06
偶的看法：目的是迅速撤离，但撤离中会有毒气和爆炸的问题，但根本目的是迅速撤离，所以增加了撤离所需的时间，那么就和初衷根本违背，所以是A
作者: MWY 时间: 2003-8-10 18:11
谢谢各位的回贴,大家说的都有道理.这是我逻辑上的误区,以后会注意的.
再一次感谢以上各位的帮助.
作者: jamesliu79 时间: 2004-8-12 21:16
看了CRANBERRY的解释,豁然开朗了!多谢了!
作者: pinesong 时间: 2004-8-25 19:29
我觉得c放了一个烟雾弹，指出了一个次要问题，企图掩盖真正的答案，主要是迅速撤离，因为有毒气于是建议用hood,至于hood不能防止爆炸，这个我们谁都知道，但并不是因为它不能防止爆炸我们就反对它，但在考场上确实很容易迷惑我们啊
作者: 甜橙 时间: 2004-9-10 02:32
我也中了ets的烟雾弹，二选一出错。PS：从CD下载的OG对这一题的解释有点小错误，就是把对C的解释说成D的了，而且漏了对D的解释。我正好昨天刚收到了OG这本书，对照了一下，把对C、D的解释补在这里，希望能对没有OG这本书的人有一点点帮助。
That the hoods protect from only one major risk is no reason for rejection, so C is incorrect.
That some passengers ignore safety instructions is also no reason for rejection, so D is incorrect.
作者: 思谦 时间: 2005-6-22 23:32
谢谢指点！
作者: welkin 时间: 2005-6-23 14:10
以下是引用jerry_link在2003-7-25 23:30:00的发言：
增加逃出去的时间是负作用
无法阻止爆炸是无作用（也就是既没积极但也没有相反的影响）
当然应该选A,它非但没有益处还带来坏的影响
我觉得不能说是“也就是既没积极但也没有相反的影响” ， 措施明显可以达到防止吸入的作用，只是不能同时防止爆炸。我觉得C是支持officials' recommendation。打个比方，现在有一种方法能让我们的GMAT成绩达到800分，但是而对于提高我们的AWA成绩没有帮助（注意是没有帮助－C，而不是对AWA的成绩提高帮倒忙－A）。 那大家觉得这个方法该用还是不该用。
[此贴子已经被作者于2005-6-24 17:09:57编辑过]
作者: Avantasia 时间: 2005-6-26 20:31
我觉得hood的作用就是在防止吸入毒气, 这个作用已经达到了, 所以C无法weaken, 题目里面没有说它要有其它作用.
作者: 思谦 时间: 2005-7-28 11:39
此题初衷是exit airplanes swiftly after accidents， since gases released following accidents are toxic to humans and often explode soon after being released。A中说增加了leave的时间，和exit airplanes swiftly after accidents违背，即有explode soon的危险。而c中之时说hoods没有防止igniting.但有protect passengers from the toxic gases的能力，毕竟比原来好了，说明应该实行safety officials' recommendation。并不是拒绝safety officials' recommendation的原因。是这样理解吗？
作者: swlfx 时间: 2005-7-29 15:23
多谢
作者: KATIEUS 时间: 2006-12-2 05:52
作者: helenzane 时间: 2008-9-22 11:38
我觉得C里的"do nothing to prevent the gases frome igniting"完全就没用，原文那个定语从句说得很清楚：smoke hoods that prevent inhalation of the gases.为了prevent inhalation于是用hook，不是为了别的，所以只要能prevent inhalation就行。如果按照C的思路对的话，那如果改成：hook能protect passengers from the toxic gases，但不能preventgases release那就也行了~ 所以，只要能达到原文的目的就行，其他辅助作用时候有，比如是否好看，是否能听音乐等等多功能完全就不需要考虑
作者: pragh 时间: 2009-4-30 17:28
我觉得这题，爆炸是个部分干扰项。
看题干中in order to 这句话，说的就是为了防止吸入，所以建议用面具防止吸入致死。没有提到爆炸。所以要削弱的话，也要针对这项。
A选项中拖延了逃生时间；C中能够解决吸入问题，算是支持，防止爆炸与否和所要削弱的观点无关。
| 欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/) |
Powered by Discuz! X3.3 |