NN帮帮忙GWD逻辑题

GWD7-Q5:

Exposure to certain chemicals commonly used in elementary schools as cleaners or pesticides causes allergic reactions in some children.  Elementary school nurses in Renston report that the proportion of schoolchildren sent to them for treatment of allergic reactions to those chemicals has increased significantly over the past ten years.  Therefore, either Renston’s schoolchildren have been exposed to greater quantities of the chemicals, or they are more sensitive to them than schoolchildren were ten years ago.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

1. The number of school nurses employed by Renston’s elementary schools has not decreased over the past ten years.

2. Children who are allergic to the chemicals are no more likely than other children to have allergies to other substances.

3. Children who have allergic reactions to the chemicals are not more likely to be sent to a school nurse now than they were ten years ago.

4. The chemicals are not commonly used as cleaners or pesticides in houses and apartment buildings in Renston.

5. Children attending elementary school do not make up a larger proportion of Renston’s population now than they did ten years ago.

这道题之前讨论过，有个人NN说

on the other hand, is an assumption of the original argument. Try deny C, we get "Children who have allergic reactions to the chemicals are more likely to be sent to a school nurse now than they were ten years ago." If so, this could have caused most of the reported increase by nurses, and the original argument that "either Renston’s schoolchildren have been exposed to greater quantities of the chemicals, or they are more sensitive to them than schoolchildren were ten years ago" would fall apart. So, C is an assuption, and the best answer

不明白啊，题干中不是说 Elementary school nurses in Renston report that the proportion of schoolchildren sent to them for treatment of allergic reactions to those chemicals has increased significantly over the past ten years，现在被送去治疗的学生比十年前多了么，为什么还选C，现在对化学物质过敏的孩子和十年前相比不太可能送到校医务室，那取非，也没看出来削弱啊？ 另外结论中的either...or..不是要么。。要么...的意思么。。。

on the other hand, is an assumption of the original argument. Try deny C, we get "Children who have allergic reactions to the chemicals are more likely to be sent to a school nurse now than they were ten years ago." If so, this could have caused most of the reported increase by nurses, and the original argument that "either Renston’s schoolchildren have been exposed to greater quantities of the chemicals, or they are more sensitive to them than schoolchildren were ten years ago" would fall apart. So, C is an assuption, and the best answer

不明白啊，题干中不是说 Elementary school nurses in Renston report that the proportion of schoolchildren sent to them for treatment of allergic reactions to those chemicals has increased significantly over the past ten years，现在被送去治疗的学生比十年前多了么，为什么还选C，现在对化学物质过敏的孩子和十年前相比不太可能送到校医务室，那取非，也没看出来削弱啊？ 另外结论中的either...or..不是要么。。要么...的意思么。。。

想了一个钟头了

好像明白了，是either ...or ...的问题，要么。。。不然。。。。。

现在的结论是：要是 Renston’s schoolchildren have been exposed to greater quantities of the chemicals，否则they are more sensitive to them than schoolchildren were ten years ago.

 也就是说他们现在只是说否则的情况，事实上没有比十年前敏感，假设就是C了。

 也就是说他们现在只是说否则的情况，事实上没有比十年前敏感，假设就是C了。