求解答og2016 79题

温润的风 · 发表于 2016-2-29 19:16:51

79. Increased use of incineration is sometimes advocated as a safe way to dispose of chemical waste. But opponents of incineration point to the 40 incidents involving unexpected releases of dangerous chemical agents that were reported just last year at two existing incinerators commissioned to destroy a quantity of chemical waste material. Since designs for proposed new incinerators include no additional means of preventing such releases, leaks will only become more prevalent if use of incineration increases.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?
(A) At the two incinerators at which leaks were reported, staff had had only cursory training on the proper procedures for incinerating chemical waste.
(B) Other means of disposing of chemical waste, such as chemical neutralization processes, have not been proven safer than incineration.
(C) The capacity of existing incinerators is sufficient to allow for increased incineration of chemical waste without any need for new incinerators.
(D) The frequency of reports of unexpected releases of chemical agents at newly built incinerators is about the same as the frequency at older incinerators.
(E) In only three of the reported incidents of unexpected chemical leaks did the releases extend outside the property on which the incinerators were located.
选a是因为是他因么不选c是因为反前提了么
谢谢亲

alzn2765 · 发表于 2016-2-29 20:52:12

我觉得是统计枚举
opponents根据2个“样本”就下结论“所有的incineration都会leak”
CQ：样本不具有代表性
找一个选项说那2起leak事件具有其他incinerator不具有的“特殊性”

C是无关选项。本题讨论的是incinerator会不会leak。C说的是incinerator的capacity够不够大。在你自己不额外加前提的情况下，capacity和leak是没有关系的。
千万记住：不能自己加额外的前提！这就是为什么中国人做CR题正确率比外国人低的原因：中国人喜欢自己加题中目没有给出的前提。外国人比较傻B，题干怎么说他就怎么做，不会瞎联想。就好比今天看到一个什么教养协会的主席发微博拍了两个女孩蹲在地上等地铁，他说“没有教养”。原因竟是他认为这个蹲法是女子如厕时的蹲法。。。蹲着就一定是要上厕所吗？可见中国人的“联想”之可怕。。。。

千万不要自己加前提！

温润的风 · 发表于 2016-3-1 11:57:05

alzn2765 发表于 2016-2-29 20:52
我觉得是统计枚举
opponents根据2个“样本”就下结论“所有的incineration都会leak”
CQ：样本不具有代表性 ...

哈哈谢谢您，确实是我脑补了不少

花儿mm · 发表于 2016-3-13 07:31:21

这道题应该还是属于因果类型：
前提：no additional means of preventing such release
结论： leaks will be more prevalent

是基于“没有防护措施”与“是否泄露就更多”的逻辑关系。
找它因：前提+选项≠> 结论

答案A：员工关于处理流程培训粗略，说明这个不是跟有没有防护措施有关，而是培训流程上出现的问题。
至于答案D：的确和楼主所说的那样，反前提了，因为文中已经阐述了新的incineration 的确incident rate 增加。

求指正！

shoohuf · 发表于 2017-5-23 08:02:13

alzn2765 发表于 2016-2-29 20:52
我觉得是统计枚举
opponents根据2个“样本”就下结论“所有的incineration都会leak”
CQ：样本不具有代表性 ...

完善员工的培训不就是additional means of preventing release吗。。。

AlexYoung · 发表于 2017-7-22 09:18:07

shoohuf 发表于 2017-5-23 08:02
完善员工的培训不就是additional means of preventing release吗。。。

在建不建这个事件上，不造成影响。只要建好后注意培训就好了。不能因为没有培训好就否定“建”的合理性。

supermario5 · 发表于 2019-6-27 09:39:15

需要削弱的关系：more incineration → more leak
A他因削弱：staff's cursory training → more leak 表明leak不一定是由incineration导致的。
B比较其他方法和焚烧法的安全问题，就算焚烧法比其他方法更安全，也并没削弱incineration和leak的关系。
C讲不需要建更多的incinerators就可以完成更多的incinerations,错误关注了incinerators的增加而非题目中应该关注的incineration的增加，也完全不涉及more leak的关系。
D增强，说明新老焚烧机被报道出现泄露的频率是一样的，就说明新的焚烧机也会像老的焚烧机一样more incineration → more leak.
E讲泄露之后的进一步结果，完全不涉及incineration→ leak的关系。

葛葛冲鸭 · 发表于 2021-11-19 22:15:49

supermario5 发表于 2019-6-27 09:39
需要削弱的关系：more incineration → more leak
A他因削弱：staff's cursory training → more leak 表明 ...

应该是 no additional means of preventing ——> leak吧。
削弱是 cursory staff training ——> leak

求解答og2016 79题

所属分类: GMAT考试

正在浏览此版块的会员 ()