ChaseDream
搜索
12下一页
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: 9011|回复: 12
打印 上一主题 下一主题

新Prep cr1 的98题,有点反应不过来...

[复制链接]
跳转到指定楼层
楼主
发表于 2010-5-23 22:04:16 | 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.



答案我是知道选C啦,但是在自己总结的时候,突然下对D选项不解了...
谁帮我解释下这个D为什么错呀?
收藏收藏 收藏收藏
沙发
发表于 2010-5-23 22:26:14 | 只看该作者
我觉得。。d说的是漏油问题,原文主要说的是原来的污染沉淀被搅起来的问题,没有对应上。。
板凳
 楼主| 发表于 2010-5-23 22:29:55 | 只看该作者
我觉得。。d说的是漏油问题,原文主要说的是原来的污染沉淀被搅起来的问题,没有对应上。。
-- by 会员 mousealpha (2010/5/23 22:26:14)



原来的污染被搅起来是C选项的吧...
地板
发表于 2010-5-23 22:37:28 | 只看该作者
原文里面说了:across the lake’s bottom might revive pollution

c里面比较明确的说了个情况。。
5#
发表于 2010-5-23 22:56:01 | 只看该作者
个人感觉。。。一个是 construction of an oil pipeline
一个是 oil pipeline。这里的概念有区分吧?
6#
发表于 2010-5-23 23:04:05 | 只看该作者
恩。。同意ls的。。我也觉得这是两个概念。。

d的局限到pipeline了。。

原文讨论的应该是construction of an oil pipeline。。
7#
 楼主| 发表于 2010-5-23 23:10:41 | 只看该作者
对哦对哦,谢谢楼上的哈,我题目看得还不够仔细啊
8#
发表于 2010-7-30 00:25:07 | 只看该作者
为什么选C呢?请牛牛解释一下,谢谢!
9#
发表于 2010-8-18 15:04:53 | 只看该作者
前提:防止石油泄漏的技术已经被应用了。
结论:这项技术很有效,人们没必要担心。

B排除了涉及PIPELINE的其他污染可能.原文的PREMISE已经说明了technology is effective,所以这里补的是条件,排除他因,所以正确。

C项错的原因是,此项的意思否认了原文给出的前提。GMAT逻辑中,原文给出的前提---即正确的。不可推翻。

D项的意思是:由漏油引起的唯一harm是damage了fish的population.
取反:漏油还带来其它的harm(比如:杀死小虾。)---->与原文的给出的前提和结论无关,无法weaken 结论。所以也错。
10#
发表于 2010-8-21 23:58:44 | 只看该作者
A呢?
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, 2024-11-24 17:06
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