【假设题】19.(27995-!-item-!-188;#058&003473)
Gortland has long been narrowly self-sufficient in both grain and meat.
However, as per capita income in Gortland has risen toward the world average, per capita consumption of meat has also risen toward the world average, and it takes several pounds of grain to produce one pound of meat.Therefore, since per capita income continues to rise, whereas domestic grain production will not increase, Gortland will soon have to import either grain or meat or both.
Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?
G地区在很长一段时间内在谷物和肉类消耗上都刚刚好能够保持自给自足。
然而，G地区的人均收入增加并趋于世界平均水平，人均消耗的肉类也增加趋于世界平均水平。
很多英镑的谷物能生产1英镑的肉。因此，由于人均收入还在继续增长，然而当地的谷物产量不会增加，G地区将很快不得不进口谷物或肉类或两者都进。【进口依据的假设】
(A)The total acreage devoted to grain production in Gortland will soon decrease.
（谷物生产地减少-> 产量减少-> 生产出的肉减少->需要进口）
题目中说了domestic grain production will not increase，但不代表它不会减少啊。少了不就正好证明需要进口了吗？
(B)Importing either grain or meat will not result in a significantly higher percentage of Gortlanders' incomes being spent on food than is currently the case.
进口谷物或者肉类都不会导致大部分的G收入被花费在食物上而不是其他东西上。(X)
Is currently the case (无关词)
(C)The per capita consumption of meat in Gortland is increasing at roughly the same rate across all income levels.
G地区人均肉类消耗增长率和所有收入类别的增长率相对一致。（x）
(D)The per capita income of meat producers in Gortland is rising faster than the per capita income of grain producers.
G地区的肉类生产者的人均收入提高速度比谷物生产者的人均收入提高速度快。（X）
Meat producers// grain producers（无关词）
(E)People in Gortland who increase their consumption of meat will not radically decrease their consumption of grain.
G地区增加对肉类消耗的人不会完全地减少他们对谷物的消耗。
（肉类消耗增加，谷物消耗不会完全减少 -> 不能自给自足，需要进口）
但是本选项里面还有个redically decrease,如果它没有这个词，我会认为E绝对比A更好。但是不会完全的减少也许会减少一大部分，因此减少的部分可以用来生产肉，说不定还够了不用自给自足了
【解释题】23.(29107-!-item-!-188;#058&003854)
From 1978 to 1988, beverage containers accounted for a steadily decreasing percentage of the total weight of household garbage in the United States.
The increasingly widespread practice of recycling aluminum and glass was responsible for most of this decline.However, although aluminum recycling was more widely practiced in this period than glass recycling, it was found that the weight of glass bottles in household garbage declined by a greater percentage than the weight of aluminum cans.
Which of the following, if true of the United States in the period 1978 to 1988, most helps to account for the finding?
从1978年到1988年，美国家庭垃圾中饮料器皿的总重量有了稳步的减少。
减少的原因大部分是由于对人们不断增加的对铝制品和玻璃制品的回收训练。然而，虽然在这个时期，对铝制品回收的训练要比对玻璃制品回收的训练次数多。人们发现家庭垃圾中的玻璃瓶的重量比铝制罐头的重量要减少的比例多。【解释的内容】
正常推测：铝制品回收训练多–> 家庭对铝制品回收方法更熟悉 -> 铝制品回收再利用的机会比玻璃制品大 -> 垃圾中铝制品的比例应该小
(A)Glass bottles are significantly heavier than aluminum cans of comparable size.
(B)Recycled aluminum cans were almost all beverage containers, but a significant fraction of the recycled glass bottles had contained products other than beverages.
回收的铝制品几乎全是饮料器皿，但是回收的玻璃制品有一重要部分是除了饮料器皿以外的其他东西。（铝制品几乎全是饮料器皿，证明几乎全部能回收，这样玻璃制品的比例就应该多，与现象相反）
(C)Manufacturers replaced many glass bottles, but few aluminum cans, with plastic containers.
生产商用塑料器皿代替了许多玻璃瓶，少量的铝罐。（所以玻璃比铝少）
(D)The total weight of glass bottles purchased by households increased at a slightly faster rate than the total weight of aluminum cans.
家庭中购买玻璃瓶的总量增加的比率比铝罐总重量快。（比率不等于实际数量）
(E)In many areas, glass bottles had to be sorted by color of the glass before being recycled, whereas aluminum cans required no sorting.
在很多地方，玻璃瓶在回收之前需要根据玻璃的颜色被分类，但铝制品不用被分类。
（1）题目中用的是percent,不是number.有可能比例下降了但是绝对数量还是多；
（2）C选项，不仅引入了manufacture这个新词，而且还加入了另一个新的事物plastic.（老觉得跟同类别其他似的）。而且，解释题最好的解决方法是用文中的内容去解释文章的结论。
（3）我觉得选E是因为也许分类后，每一类的玻璃都比铝的比例小。文中结论，人们比的是分类后的玻璃和铝的比例。但实际上总体加起来玻璃还是比铝多。有这个可能嘛？
| 
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2010-8-19 12:31:25
收藏
收藏
楼主
要認真想一下