GWD-29-Q37, GWD-29-Q35多谢

ypl214 · 发表于 2010-7-31 11:20:54

In Patton City, days are categorized as having heavy rainfall (more than two inches), moderate rainfall (more than one inch, but no more than two inches), light rainfall (at least a trace, but no more than one inch), or no rainfall.In 1990, there were fewer days with light rainfall than in 1910 and fewer with moderate rainfall, yet total rainfall for the year was 20 percent higher in 1990 than in 1910.

If the statements above are true, then it is also possible that in Patton City

A.the number of days with heavy rainfall was lower in 1990 than in 1910

B.the number of days with some rainfall, but no more than two inches, was the same in 1990 as in 1910

C.the number of days with some rainfall, but no more than two inches, was higher in 1990 than in 1910

D.the total number of inches of rain that fell on days with moderate rainfall in 1990 was more than twice what it had been in 1910

E.the average amount of rainfall per month was lower in 1990 than in 1910
我认为没一个对的
Rabbits were introduced to Numa Island
in the nineteenth century.Overgrazing by the enormous population of rabbits now menaces the island’s agriculture.The government proposes to reduce the population by using a virus that has caused devastating epidemics in rabbit populations elsewhere.There is, however, a chance that the virus will infect the bilby, an endangered native marsupial.The government’s plan, therefore, may serve the interests of agriculture but will clearly increase the threat to native wildlife.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

A.There is less chance that the virus will infect domestic animals on Numa than that it will infect bilbies.

B.There are no species of animals on the island that prey on the rabbits.

C.Overgrazing by rabbits endangers many of the plants on which bilbies feed.（我觉着没关系啊）
D.The virus that the government proposes to use has been successfully used elsewhere to control populations of rabbits.

E.There is no alternative means of reducing the rabbit population that would involve no threat to the bilby.

Rabbits were introduced to Numa Island
in the nineteenth century.Overgrazing by the enormous population of rabbits now menaces the island’s agriculture.The government proposes to reduce the population by using a virus that has caused devastating epidemics in rabbit populations elsewhere.There is, however, a chance that the virus will infect the bilby, an endangered native marsupial.The government’s plan, therefore, may serve the interests of agriculture but will clearly increase the threat to native wildlife.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

A.There is less chance that the virus will infect domestic animals on Numa than that it will infect bilbies.

B.There are no species of animals on the island that prey on the rabbits.

C.Overgrazing by rabbits endangers many of the plants on which bilbies feed.（我觉着没关系啊）
D.The virus that the government proposes to use has been successfully used elsewhere to control populations of rabbits.

E.There is no alternative means of reducing the rabbit population that would involve no threat to the bilby.

2008115061 · 发表于 2010-7-31 12:56:16

第一题建议你直接google一下有XDF的讲解。
第二题我自己的想法：我认为削弱的argument 是“will clearly increase the threat to native wildlife”。
作者认为virus will infect B--->对B有害，但忽略了这种病毒对B的好处，就是会消灭兔子（兔子从一种方面来说是天敌，因为会吃掉草）

tanyawu · 发表于 2010-7-31 13:28:07

GWD-29-Q37选A.

这题有一个概念不能混淆：1990年light rain天数比1910年light rain天数少，并不能说明1990年下的light rain总量比1910年下的light rain总量小，很有可能虽然light rain下得天数小，可是每一次下得量都比1910年每一次light rain下得量多。同理，moderate rain, heavy rain也是同样的道理。

tanyawu · 发表于 2010-7-31 13:34:54

读下来只有C是相关的选项，我觉得可以这样理解：
因为病毒会威胁B, 所以引入病毒来减少兔子产量同时也会增加对B的危害。

C选项：兔子数量过多，会把B的食物给吃了

那么引入病毒，当兔子入量减少，那么B就有更多的食物可以吃（这些原本被兔子吃了），这样也从某种程度抵消了病毒本身带给B的威胁。

ypl214 · 发表于 2010-7-31 18:26:22

那个第一题照楼上的说，岂不是都有可能

KimiHana · 发表于 2010-8-1 20:01:31

已知：0< light rainfall ≦1；1< moderate rainfall ≦2；heavy rainfall > 2

1990年小雨和中雨的天数都比1910少，然而1990年全年的降雨量还比1910多，那就只能是1990年的大雨天数比1910多，一般我们都会这样的预估，但选项恰恰没有该项。迷茫中，看到了D，误以为找到了救星，正好落在了出题者的陷阱之中。

细看该题所问“If the statements above are true, then it is also possible that in Patton City”，原来并非是由原文推出选项的导出题，而是一道怪题；只要是“可能的”项就是正确的。换句话说，依据原文，有四个选项是绝不可能的，只有一个是可能的。

再看D，在1990年中雨天数比1910少的情况下，其降雨量可以超过1910的2倍吗？绝不可能，因为1< moderate rainfall ≦2，即最大的中雨量不超过最小的中雨量的2倍，也就是：即便1990的中雨天每次都是最大量，而1910的中雨量每次都是最小量，那么D都不能成立。

而B与C明显与已知条件矛盾，“1990年小雨和中雨的天数都比1910少”。
而E与“1990年全年的降雨量还比1910多”冲突。

看来也就A有希望了，但A与我们的预估相反。
但A的确是可能的，说个最极端的情况，1990年只下了一天雨，那是一场万年不遇的亿寸豪雨，其降雨量可以远远超过1910年的天天小雨、中雨或大雨。一天就超过365天这有什么不可能的呢？

其实这题一点也不难，就是怪，思路逆向而走，在狭缝中寻找可能空间；看到这里，各位看官霎时领悟，真可谓：“忽报人间曾伏虎，泪飞顿作倾盆雨”
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

以上，转自XDF哦~

LZ我今天刚好也做到这道题目，顺手贴给你啦，话说这道题可真是BT啊~

GWD-29-Q37, GWD-29-Q35多谢

所属分类: GMAT考试

正在浏览此版块的会员 ()