- UID
- 1033558
- 在线时间
- 小时
- 注册时间
- 2014-8-4
- 最后登录
- 1970-1-1
- 主题
- 帖子
- 性别
- 保密
|
The cause of the wreck of the ship Edmund Fitzgeraldin a severe storm on Lake Superior is still unknown. When the
sunken wreckage of the vessel was found, searchers discovered the hull in two pieces lying close together. The
storm‘s violent waves would have caused separate pieces floating even briefly on the surface to drift apart. Therefore,
the breakup of the hull can be ruled out as the cause of the sinking.
Which of the following is an assumption on which theargument depends?
A. Ships as large as theEdmund Fitzgeraldrarely sink except in the most violent weather.
B. Underwater currents at the time of the storm did not move the separated pieces of the hull together again.
C. Pieces of the hull would have sunk more quickly than the intact hull would have.
D. The waves of the storm were not violent enough to have caused the ship to break up on the surface.
E. If the ship broke up before sinking, the pieces of the hull would not have remained on the surface for very long.
下面是prep12的解释
What must be true in order for the given premises to justify the conclusion that the broken hull did not sink the ship?
The ship wrecked in a storm. If the hull was in separate pieces during the storm, the waves would have made the
pieces drift apart. But the two pieces of the hull were found close together. Therefore, the argument concludes that
the hull must not have been in separate pieces whenthe ship sank. This assumes that since the two pieces of the
hull were found together, the storm waves never made them drift apart.
A. This need not be true for the premises to justify the conclusion. It is perfectly compatible with the argument that
large ships often sink in calm weather for example,due to factors such as icebergs or naval battles.
B. Correct. The argument assumes that the pieces of the hull never drifted apart in the first place and hence that
underwater currents did not move them back togetheragain.
C. If the pieces of the hull had sunk quickly, they would have had little time to drift apart. Therefore, they might
have been found together even if the ship's hull had broken in the storm.
D. Even if the waves had been violent enough to potentially break up the ship, they might not actually have done
so. For instance, the ship may have sunk before thewaves were able to break it up.
E. As in C, if the pieces of the hull had not remainedon the surface for long, they would have had littletime to drift
apart.
The correct answer is B.
解释什么的也都能看懂，就是不太明白为什么题目中最后一句说由于hull被发现时是在一起的就能推断出来hull的破损是沉船的主要原因
第一次发帖，不太懂规矩，谢谢大家的解答~
|
|
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2014-12-19 15:36:37
收藏
收藏
楼主
