ChaseDream
搜索
12下一页
返回列表 发新帖
00:00:00

Offshore oil-drilling operations entail an unavoidable risk of an oil spill, but importing oil on tankers presently entails an even greater such risk per barrel of oil. Therefore, if we are to reduce the risk of an oil spill without curtailing our use of oil, we must invest more in offshore operations and import less oil on tankers.

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

正确答案: A

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: 12399|回复: 12
打印 上一主题 下一主题

OG-186

[复制链接]
楼主
发表于 2003-11-26 18:53:00 | 只看该作者

OG-186

186.
Offshore oil-drilling operations entail an unavoidable risk of an oil spill, but importing oil on
tankers presently entails an even greater such risk per barrel of oil. Therefore, if we are to
reduce the risk of an oil spill without curtailing our use of oil, we must invest more in offshore
operations and import less oil on tankers.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument above?
(A) Tankers can easily be redesigned so that their use entails less risk of an oil spill.
(B) Oil spills caused by tankers have generally been more serious than those caused by
offshore operations.
(C) The impact of offshore operations on the environment can be controlled by careful
management.
(D) Offshore operations usually damage the ocean floor, but tankers rarely cause such
damage.
(E) Importing oil on tankers is currently less expensive than drilling for it offshore.
187.

答案是A,我觉得这个答案有点古怪啊?D不是更好吗?也提到了operation risk啊?

谢谢。
推荐
发表于 2010-3-7 23:07:48 | 只看该作者
我觉得这道题用词用得那叫一个精辟:
186.
Offshore oil-drilling operations entail an unavoidable(表明通过什么方法都不能避免)risk of an oil spill, but importing oil on
tankers presently(表明通过某某方法在未来是可以避免的,正如A)entails an even greater such risk per barrel of oil. Therefore, if we are to
reduce the risk of an oil spill without curtailing our use of oil, we must invest more in offshore
operations and import less oil on tankers.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument above?
(A) Tankers can easily be redesigned so that their use entails less risk of an oil spill.
(B) Oil spills caused by tankers have generally been more serious than those caused by
offshore operations.
(C) The impact of offshore operations on the environment can be controlled by careful
management.
(D) Offshore operations usually damage the ocean floor, but tankers rarely cause such
damage.
(E) Importing oil on tankers is currently less expensive than drilling for it offshore.
沙发
发表于 2003-11-26 19:02:00 | 只看该作者
我也觉得答案有点古怪,因为我第一意识也是选D的.但是如果按照D的推理,一个是说海底的破坏和一个是海水表面的破坏,并没有说哪个造成的危害更严重,而我们自己的主观是认为海底的破坏严重.实际上文中并没有说哪个更严重.
所以应该还是A对.
板凳
发表于 2003-11-27 08:04:00 | 只看该作者
D irrelevant
damage the ocean floor和risk of oil spill没有关系。
题目要求是if we are to reduce the risk of an oil spill
地板
 楼主| 发表于 2003-11-27 08:45:00 | 只看该作者
以下是引用jandj_shanghai在2003-11-27 8:04:00的发言:
D irrelevant
damage the ocean floor和risk of oil spill没有关系。
题目要求是if we are to reduce the risk of an oil spill


jandj_shanghai,我现在能理解D为何不对了,可是A为何是对的啊?谢谢。
5#
发表于 2003-11-27 09:13:00 | 只看该作者
文中说reduce the risk of an oil spill,我们必须more offshore, less tankers因为tanker的risk比offshore大。
A选项说redesign tanker可以减少risk,则通过redesign也可以reduce risk,不是must more offshore less tankers。
6#
 楼主| 发表于 2003-11-28 16:49:00 | 只看该作者
这一题,今天才终于明白了。谢谢jandj_shanghai。你的逻辑真强啊。
7#
发表于 2005-7-31 16:49:00 | 只看该作者
谢谢jandj_shanghai。
8#
发表于 2006-11-28 10:01:00 | 只看该作者
10#
发表于 2010-9-19 17:27:16 | 只看该作者
的确用此很精辟,觉得有时候做逻辑还需要对关键词的敏感度;
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, 2024-11-10 01:33
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