ChaseDream
搜索
返回列表 发新帖
查看: 700|回复: 1
打印 上一主题 下一主题

又是狒狒.73不会!不懂!求教

[复制链接]
跳转到指定楼层
楼主
发表于 2011-11-6 10:15:40 | 只看该作者 回帖奖励 |倒序浏览 |阅读模式
There is no reason why the woek of scientists has to be officially confirmed before being published. There is a system in place for the confirmation or disconfirmation of scientific findings, namely, the reolication of results by other scientists. Poor scientific work on the part of any one scientists, which can include anything from careless reporting practices to fraud, is not harmful. It will be exposed and rendered harmless when other scientists conduct experiments and obtain disconfirmatory results.
weaken argument?
(A) Scientific experiments can go unchallenged for many years before they are replicated.
(B) Most scientists work in universities, where their work is submitted to peer review before publication.
(C) Most scientists are under pressure to make their work accessible to the scrutiny of replication.
(D) In scientific experiments, careless reporting is more common than fraud.
(E) Most scientists work as part of a team rather than alone.
收藏收藏 收藏收藏
沙发
发表于 2011-11-6 15:53:36 | 只看该作者
呃。题目里头有几个单词拼写错误不晓得是LZ大意了还是原本拼错了...
第一行woek-work,第二行replication-replication。这样子题目会不会好懂一点...

来试着翻译一下:“科研成果必须经过证实再发表”是没有道理的。在这方面,原本就有一个约定俗成的惯例来验证科研成果,就是通过其他科学家来检验。那些的Poor 的科研成果会导致欺诈,但是这是无害的。因为其他科学家很快会通过实验去曝光之否定之。

呐大致就是说作者认为没必要先证实再发表,因为就算这项科研失真了也会有别的科学家来揭穿它╮(╯▽╰)╭

A选项正确~是说科学实验发表后会有很长很长一段时间没有人来挑战它。所以就直接weaken了。
B选项是context?
C选项是支持吧。
DE两个看不出来和原文有什么关系囧
您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 立即注册

Mark一下! 看一下! 顶楼主! 感谢分享! 快速回复:

手机版|ChaseDream|GMT+8, 2025-8-6 03:12
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号

ChaseDream 论坛

© 2003-2025 ChaseDream.com. All Rights Reserved.

返回顶部