OG13 CR#14求解

zhudanqing · 发表于 2013-10-25 17:58:42

14. Wood smoke contains dangerous toxins that causechanges in human cells. Because wood smoke presents such a high health risk,legislation is needed to regulate the use of open-air fires and wood-burningstoves.

Which of the following, if true,provides the most support for the argument above?

(A) The amount of dangerous toxins contained in woodsmoke is much less than the amount contained in an equal volume of automobileexhaust.

(B) Within the jurisdiction covered by the proposedlegislation, most heating and cooking is done with oil or natural gas.

(C) Smoke produced by coal-burning stoves issignificantly more toxic than smoke from wood-burning stoves.

(D) No significant beneficial effect on air quality wouldresult if open-air fires were banned within the jurisdiction covered by the proposedlegislation.

(E) In valleys where wood is used as the primary heatingfuel, the concentration of smoke results in poor air quality.

答案是E

我的疑问在于，为什么B不能加强。
我的理解如下：这个法律能产生效应，确实促使人们减少使用了wood-burning。

关于E的加强，逻辑链怎么理解？谢谢！

soulwangh · 发表于 2013-10-25 22:56:51

关于B
1、别的地方不代表此时此地。2、法律生效和做饭用油就是相关关系，没有额外信息表示是立法导致人们不用炉子而用油。

关于E，楼主把E放入前提和结论之间就能看出来了。这是一个前提的补充。有个CR题说往人们用的药通过下水道排在河里，这些药物中含有不好的成分，后来又说但由于浓度很低不会对人产生影响。所以没必要大惊小怪。你看看E中的内容是不是把smoke浓度这个事很低的事实给取非了？

zhudanqing · 发表于 2013-10-25 23:12:24

soulwangh 发表于 2013-10-25 22:56
关于B
1、别的地方不代表此时此地。2、法律生效和做饭用油就是相关关系，没有额外信息表示是立法导致人们不 ...

谢谢耐心回答~~~~
关于B，没说其他地方。法律生效，most most heating and cooking 用了oil和natural gas,那是不是可以推出用wood burning就是少部分或者不用了呢= =

E的逻辑连还是不太懂= =怎么办。。。。智商捉鸡了

soulwangh · 发表于 2013-10-26 00:13:37

zhudanqing 发表于 2013-10-25 23:12
谢谢耐心回答~~~~
关于B，没说其他地方。法律生效，most most heating and cooking 用了oil和natural ga ...

most most heating and cooking 用了oil和natural gas,那是不是可以推出用wood burning就是少部分或者不用了呢

恩、这个又看了一下，之前理解有错误。B within the jurisdiction covered by the proposed legislation，是说将要生效的法律管辖的地区，实际上很多已经是用油和燃气了，这个是削弱不是增强。

E 既然B这种削弱情况会发生——尽管wood smoke 有种种害处，但其影响并不大——那么E实际上是说立个法还是有必要的，还是有其用武之地的。因为的确有smoke会造成较大危害的情况。

zhudanqing · 发表于 2013-10-26 12:36:45

soulwangh 发表于 2013-10-26 00:13
most most heating and cooking 用了oil和natural gas,那是不是可以推出用wood burning就是少部分或者不 ...

我觉得ls对B的理解跟我不一样啊= =
B的意思是：在这个法律覆盖的区域范围内，许多烧饭之类的都是用了油和天然气。

soulwangh · 发表于 2013-10-26 13:47:36

zhudanqing 发表于 2013-10-26 12:36
我觉得ls对B的理解跟我不一样啊= =
B的意思是：在这个法律覆盖的区域范围内，许多烧饭之类的都是用了油 ...

这个多说无意义了，来看看OE吧。用Ron的话讲就是，你不可能去challenge OG，如果你觉得和OG跟你想的不一样，那就想办法让自己的思维和OG一致。

Argument Construction
Situation Reasoning
Wood smoke is hazardous, so restrictive legislation is needed.
Which point supports the need for legislation? The argument for legislation is based on the position that wood smoke is hazardous to people’s health. Any evidence of physical harm resulting from wood smoke supports the argument that legislation is needed. Undoubtedly, poor air quality caused by a high concentration of wood smoke presents just such a health risk.
A If wood smoke were as dangerous as car exhaust, this might support the idea of regulating it just as exhaust emissions are regulated; but this statement tells us it is less dangerous.
B This point suggests less of a need for legislation.
C This information provides no support for the idea that the use of wood-burning stoves should be regulated.
D The lack of benefit from banning open-air fires is a point against the legislation.
E Correct. This supports the argument in favor of legislation.
The correct answer is E.

zhudanqing · 发表于 2013-10-26 14:24:52

soulwangh 发表于 2013-10-26 13:47
这个多说无意义了，来看看OE吧。用Ron的话讲就是，你不可能去challenge OG，如果你觉得和OG跟你想的不一 ...

恩！谢谢~~
请原谅我对这题无法理解的思维= =

because wood smoke presents such a high health risk不是一个需要默认的真实的事实么？

为什么选项还要对前提去做加强呢？

这一点还是不太懂啊。。。。

zhudanqing · 发表于 2013-10-26 14:33:59

soulwangh 发表于 2013-10-26 13:47
这个多说无意义了，来看看OE吧。用Ron的话讲就是，你不可能去challenge OG，如果你觉得和OG跟你想的不一 ...

重新读了B，发现之前对B的理解有误：
正确意思如下：legislation的管辖范围内，大多数heating和cooking是通过oil和天然气。
所以B是削弱，表明没有必要立法。

Helengyq · 发表于 2017-10-17 10:50:54

感谢前面的讨论，E可以用“抛开剂量谈毒性都是耍流氓”来理解了，所以不是重复结论，high concentration是对结论的补充～

OG13 CR#14求解

所属分类: GMAT考试

正在浏览此版块的会员 ()