ChaseDream
搜索
返回列表 发新帖
查看: 1732|回复: 3
打印 上一主题 下一主题

GWD-10-15

[复制链接]
楼主
发表于 2005-11-5 13:23:00 | 只看该作者

GWD-10-15


Which of the following most logically completes the argument below?



Although the number of large artificial satellites orbiting the Earth is small compared to


the number of small pieces of debris in orbit, the large satellites interfere more seriously


with telescope observations because of the strong reflections they produce. Because


many of those large satellites have ceased to function, the proposal has recently been


made to eliminate interference from nonfunctioning satellites by exploding them in space.


This proposal, however, is ill conceived, since _______.



A. many nonfunctioning satellites remain in orbit for years


B. for satellites that have ceased to function, repairing them while they are in orbit


would be prohibitively expensive


C. there are no known previous instances of satellites’ having been exploded on


purpose


D. the only way to make telescope observations without any interference from debris


in orbit is to use telescopes launched into extremely high orbits around the Earth


E. a greatly increased number of small particles in Earth’s orbit would result in a


blanket of reflections that would make certain valuable telescope observations


impossible



Answer or E?  ullzing.....



I have searched for this question, but find nothing. It seems most of your guys take it a easy question. Can anyone give a hand? Tks.



沙发
发表于 2005-11-5 13:57:00 | 只看该作者

Not sure if this is right, but for option D, launching a telescope far away from orbits around the earth doesnt necessarily lead to the conclustion that exploding the satellites will not help eliminate interference, so we cannt conclude that the proposal is ill conceived. E stating that creating a blanket of reflections by the exploding will affect the telescope observation,therefore, I think it weakens proposal and makes it ill conceived.

板凳
发表于 2005-11-5 20:21:00 | 只看该作者

E is the answer.


To make the proposal that exploding the nonfunctioning large satellites in space will eliminate the interference ill conceived, the option should provide the evidence that even the explosion cannot eliminate the interference as expected.


E asserts that the small particles will make the observation impossible even after the explosion of the nonfunctioning satellites. Therefore, the explosion proposal cannot work.

地板
发表于 2005-12-20 21:46:00 | 只看该作者
以下是引用yanginottawa在2005-11-5 13:57:00的发言:

Not sure if this is right, but for option D, launching a telescope far away from orbits around the earth doesnt necessarily lead to the conclustion that exploding the satellites will not help eliminate interference, so we cannt conclude that the proposal is ill conceived. E stating that creating a blanket of reflections by the exploding will affect the telescope observation,therefore, I think it weakens proposal and makes it ill conceived.


totally agree with yang

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, 2024-11-27 01:01
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