ChaseDream
搜索
返回列表 发新帖
查看: 4055|回复: 9
打印 上一主题 下一主题

请教GWD3-Q6

[复制链接]
楼主
发表于 2008-3-2 10:51:00 | 只看该作者

请教GWD3-Q6

GWD3-Q5 to Q7:

      In 1994, a team of scientists led

       by David Mckay began studying the

       meteorite ALH84001, which had been

Line       discovered in Antarctica in 1984.

  (5)      Two years later, the McKay team

announced that ALH84001, which

scientists generally agree originated

on Mars, contained compelling evi-

dence that life once existed on Mars.

 (10)      This evidence includes the discovery

of organic molecules in ALH84001,

the first ever found in Martian rock.

Organic molecules—complex, carbon-

based compounds—form the basis for

 (15)      terrestrial life.  The organic molecules

found in ALH84001 are polycyclic aro-

matic hydrocarbons, or PAH’s.  When

microbes die, their organic material

often decays into PAH’s.

 (20)           
                        
Skepticism about the McKay team’s

       claim remains, however.  For example,

       ALH84001 has been on earth for

13,000 years, suggesting to some

scientists that its PAH’s might have

 (25)      resulted form terrestrial contamination.

However, McKay’s team has demon-

strated that the concentration of PAH’s

increases as one looks deeper into

ALH84001, contrary to what one would

 (30)      expect from terrestrial contamination.

The skeptic’s strongest argument,

however, is that processes unrelated

       to organic life can easily produce all

the evidence found by McKay’ steam,

 (35)
                       including PAH’s.  For example, star

formation produces PAH’s.  Moreover,

PAH’s frequently appear in other

meteorites, and no one attributes

      their presence to life processes.

 (40)     Yet McKay’s team notes that the

particular combination of PAH’s

in ALH84001 is more similar to the

combinations produced by decaying

organisms than to those originating

form nonbiological processes.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Q6:
                    

The primary purpose of the passage is to

             

  1. describe new ways of studying the possibility that life once existed on Mars
  2. revise a theory regarding the existence of life on Mars in light of new evidence
  3. reconcile conflicting viewpoints regarding the possibility that life once existed on Mars(E)
  4. evaluate a recently proposed argument concerning the origin of ALH84001
  5. describe a controversy concerning the significance of evidence from ALH84001

文章中似乎没有提到significance of evidence

争论的焦点是the possibility that life once existed on Mars

C中的reconcile我觉得用的的确也不对

但请问一下这里的significance应该怎么理解?

沙发
发表于 2009-4-6 17:47:00 | 只看该作者

Two years later, the McKay team announced that ALH84001, which scientists generally agree originated
            
on Mars, contained compelling evidence that life once existed on Mars.

板凳
发表于 2009-7-15 13:33:00 | 只看该作者

请问(B)不对是因为文章中并没有提供什么new evidence吗???

地板
发表于 2009-7-19 00:56:00 | 只看该作者

我認為爭論的焦點應該是 ALH84001上的PAH之可信度。

批評者認為1.ALH84001在地球待了很久,怎麼知道PAH一定從火星來?畢竟PAH是細胞死亡的殘餘(這樣翻對不對...),所以選E

C的話,爭論重點已經不在火星有沒有生物,而是在辯論他們從ALH84001找到的證據有沒有可信度。故錯

第一次回應,解讀有錯請各位NN指教

 

5#
发表于 2010-4-9 03:41:14 | 只看该作者
感觉C更好一点

首先C和E这两个结论等价:如果evidence is significant,即证据来自火星并且是生物遗迹,就指向火星上有生命

同时,第二段里一直以McKay的假想敌身份发问,同时给出回答,我觉得已经超越了description的范畴
6#
发表于 2010-4-9 21:24:44 | 只看该作者
什么算reconcile,问中这种提出质疑然后自己回答解决掉的算不算

那位大牛zkss
7#
发表于 2010-4-18 13:32:05 | 只看该作者
观点 —— E is better than C

C reconcile vi 调和;调解
例:We tried to reconcile her with her family.    
我们试图让她和她的家庭和好。


How can he reconcile it to his conscience?    
他怎能问心无愧呢?


reconcile有两个要素, 一是动作“调” 二是结果(或者说目的)“和”
文章中,既无动作“调”,又无结果(后者说目的)“和”
所以,reconcile错


反观E
describe controversy
描述辩论


一段讲M小组的研究观点
二段讲Skepticism的观点
二段结尾讲M note blabla


只是在“describe”,作者并没有提出自己的观点、好恶
而M小组和skepticism的观点的确构成了controversy


所以,选E
8#
发表于 2013-8-9 00:41:11 | 只看该作者
请教,为什么B不对呢?
9#
发表于 2017-3-26 19:37:40 | 只看该作者
a9141067s 发表于 2009-7-15 13:33
请问(B)不对是因为文章中并没有提供什么new evidence吗???

B是说Revise a theory。前提是先有一个theory提出,然后再revise。但原文没有。
10#
发表于 2017-3-26 19:42:10 | 只看该作者
C的reconcile,解释是to find a way of making(two different ideas, facts,etc) exist or be true at the same time.
所以说reconcile是让两种看似矛盾的观点都能成立。
而文章针对PAH的两个点,都是一方成立,另一方就不能成立,水火不相容的关系。所以不是reconcile
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, 2025-2-21 19:25
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号

ChaseDream 论坛

© 2003-2025 ChaseDream.com. All Rights Reserved.

返回顶部