ChaseDream
搜索
返回列表 发新帖
查看: 1938|回复: 2
打印 上一主题 下一主题

lsat-16-3-12

[复制链接]
楼主
发表于 2004-3-30 21:19:00 | 只看该作者

lsat-16-3-12

12.       Proponents of organic farming claim that using chemical fertilizers and pesticide in farming is harmful to local wildlife. To produce the same amount of food, however, more land must be under cultivation when organic farming techniques are used than when chemicals are used. Therefore, organic farming leaves less land available as habitat for local wildlife.

Which one of the following is an assumption on which the author’s argument depends?

(A) Chemical fertilizers and pesticides pose no health threat to wildlife.

(B) Wildlife living near farms where chemicals are used will not ingest any food or water containing those chemicals.

(C) The only disadvantage to using chemicals in farming is their potential effect on wildlife.

(D) The same crops are grown on organic farms as on farms where chemicals are used.E

(E) Land cultivated by organic farming methods no longer constitutes a habitat for wildlife.
Why the answer is E. What's the meaning of the "constitutes" in E.


沙发
发表于 2004-3-30 22:14:00 | 只看该作者
意思是构成。


文章的逻辑是“有机农业--占更多耕地--野生生物没栖息地”耕地和栖息地之间按文中的逻辑是对立的关系,只有E说明了这种对立关系。

板凳
 楼主| 发表于 2004-3-30 23:42:00 | 只看该作者
谢谢cranberry,明白了。

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, 2024-11-18 03:21
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