[讨论]再问GWD 24-38 (TTGWD4-Q14）

Which of the flowing most logically completes the argument?

The attribution of the choral work Lacrimae to the composer Pescard (1400 – 1474) has been regarded as tentative, since it was based on a single treatise from the early 1500’s that named Pescard as the composer.  Recently, several musical treatises from the late 1500’s have come to light, all of which name Pescard as the composer of Lacrimae.  Unfortunately, these newly discovered treatises lend no support to the attribution of Lacrimae to Pescard, since _______.

A.      the treatise from the early 1500’s misidentifies the composers of some of the musical works it considers

B.      the author of the treatise from the early 1500’s had no very strong evidence on which to base the identification of Pescard as the composer of Lacrimae

C.      there are works that can conclusively be attributed to Pescard that are not even mentioned in the treatise from the early 1500’s

D.      the later treatises probably had no source for their attribution other than the earlier treatise

E.       no known treatises from the 1600’s identify Pescard as the composer of Lacrimae

答案是D.

我好像连题在说什么都没有读懂，好郁闷

The attribution of the choral work Lacrimae to the composer Pescard (1400 – 1474) has been regarded as tentative, since it was based on a single treatise from the early 1500’s that named Pescard as the composer.  Recently, several musical treatises from the late 1500’s have come to light, all of which name Pescard as the composer of Lacrimae.  Unfortunately, these newly discovered treatises lend no support to the attribution of Lacrimae to Pescard, since _______.

题目的意思就是说这个作品
                Lacrimae 本来以为是 Pescard 写的。这个结论是基于一个a single treatise 上的，所以一般认为只是tentative。

最近呢，又发现了several musical treatises from the late 1500’s ，这些都表明Lacrimae 本来以为是 Pescard 写的。

题目问的是 为什么这个发现没有支持上面的这个结论。

D的意思就是说 因为
            后来的several musical treatises from the late 1500’s 的来源与一开始的a single treatise 的来源是一样的，所以这个并不能对原来的结论又支持的作用，只是单纯的重复而已。

Hope it helps~~~~

豁然开朗，MM你好牛呀，多谢！

还是老喽，要是脑子能象你这样灵光，估计就能考个好成绩了。

以前的一个东东说是P写得，只有一个证据，略显不足。

后来发现了几个证据，以为可以充分证明了。

没想到，还是不充分啊？为什么呢：

因为后来的这个也是基于以前的那个证据为依据来源的。。。

（以一个还在被怀疑的证据为依据来源，来做自己的依据，这就类似“伪证的循环”了，当然不行。）

up