涛涛GWD-1-15

Which of the following most logically completes the argument below?

Although the number of large artificial satellites orbiting the Earth is small compared to the number of small pieces of debris in orbit, the large satellites interfere more seriously with telescope observations because of the strong reflections they produce.  Because many of those large satellites have ceased to function, the proposal has recently been made to eliminate interference from nonfunctioning satellites by exploding them in space.  This proposal, however, is ill conceived, since _______.

1. many nonfunctioning satellites remain in orbit for years
2. for satellites that have ceased to function, repairing them while they are in orbit would be prohibitively expensive
3. there are no known previous instances of satellites’ having been exploded on purpose
4. the only way to make telescope observations without any interference from debris in orbit is to use telescopes launched into extremely high orbits around the Earth
5. a greatly increased number of small particles in Earth’s orbit would result in a blanket of reflections that would make certain valuable telescope observations impossible

给的答案是E。但是原文给的Proposal是炸卫星，跟这里的small paritcles有什么关系呢？这道题该怎么分析？

意思是：卫星数量小，但是体积大，相比起碎片来说。这体积大呢有个坏处，干扰了天文观察，因为它会反射。由于有些卫星没用了，但是体积还是那么大。为了减少这种干扰呢，准备炸了这些卫星，消除这种反射。

空格前说，这样的方法是有效的，后面只要支持就好了

E支持啊，小碎片增加了，减少了大卫星，减少了反射，有利于天文观察。

－－－－－－

A.many nonfunctioning satellites remain in orbit for years --－－还是留着，不支持，去掉

B.for satellites that have ceased to function, repairing them while they are in orbit would be prohibitively expensive－－花钱修理他们，无关。文中是要炸了他们
    

C.there are no known previous instances of satellites’ having been exploded on purpose－－－炸了卫星后果不好预测，那就是有可能好，也有可能反而更加严重的干扰了。有weaken的意味。
    

D.the only way to make telescope observations without any interference from debris in orbit is to use telescopes launched into extremely high orbits around the Earth－－－－－－使用高轨道的绕着地球转的望远镜来观察，以减少碎片的影响。文章说是大卫星有影响。不要

Thanks a lot now I got it.

Thanks BM too.. Although there was minor mistake, hehe, they are still very good explanations.