ChaseDream
搜索
返回列表 发新帖
00:00:00

Early in the twentieth century, Lake Konfa became very polluted. Recently fish populations have recovered as release of industrial pollutants has declined and the lake's waters have become cleaner. Fears are now being voiced that the planned construction of an oil pipeline across the lake's bottom might revive pollution and cause the fish population to decline again. However, a technology for preventing leaks is being installed. Therefore, provided this technology is effective, those fears are groundless.
The argument depends on assuming which of the following?

正确答案: B

更多相关帖子

524

帖子

15

好友

4712

积分

ChaseDream

注册时间
2003-03-17
精华
8
解析
查看: 2778|回复: 2
打印 上一主题 下一主题

求助PREP2--CR1--98

[复制链接]
跳转到指定楼层
楼主
发表于 2011-11-14 22:39:09 | 只看该作者 回帖奖励 |倒序浏览 |阅读模式
Early in the twentieth century, Lake Konfa became very polluted.  Recently fish populations have recovered as release of industrial pollutants has declined and the lake’s waters have become cleaner.  Fears are now being voiced that the planned construction of an oil pipeline across the lake’s bottom might revive pollution and cause the fish population to decline again.  However, a technology for preventing leaks is being installed.  Therefore, provided this technology is effective, those fears are groundless.
The argument depends on assuming which of the following?
A. Apart from development related to the pipeline, there will be no new industrial development around the lake that will create renewed pollution in its waters.
B. There is no reason to believe that the leak-preventing technology would be ineffective when installed in the pipeline in Lake Konfa.
C. The bottom of the lake does not contain toxic remnants of earlier pollution that will be stirred into the water by pipeline construction.
D. Damage to the lake’s fish populations would be the only harm that a leak of oil from the pipeline would cause.
E. The species of fish that are present in Lake Konfa now are the same as those that were in the lake before it was affected by pollution.
收藏收藏 收藏收藏
沙发
 楼主| 发表于 2011-11-14 22:52:02 | 只看该作者
分析:
文中结论:防止漏油技术是有效的(客观事实),因此,对污染和鱼数量的减少的恐惧是无根据的。

问:前提假设

A:貌似说得太远了
B:是对文中已给事实的重复----防止漏油的技术是有效
C:引入新的元素,沉积在湖底的早期污染物也可导致再次污染
D:明确防油技术和对鱼数量造成伤害
E:描述和之前情况相同,如果释放及减少污染的情况也相同,湖水还是可以变清。但这次情况不同


整个读下来逻辑很混乱,觉得选项都可以选,比如D。。。求NN帮助!!
板凳
 楼主| 发表于 2011-11-14 23:06:10 | 只看该作者
假设题:

1 否定句取非-----是否削弱原文章

2否定句不是答案时,必为前后桥梁,补出文中的推理GAP

按照这种做法C是对的。但觉得ABDE都多少有些感觉。
您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 立即注册

Mark一下! 看一下! 顶楼主! 感谢分享! 快速回复:

手机版|ChaseDream|GMT+8, 2024-11-28 09:43
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号

ChaseDream 论坛

© 2003-2023 ChaseDream.com. All Rights Reserved.

返回顶部