大全-19-6,HELP

isuffering · 发表于 2003-9-27 13:56:00

6. Damaged nerves in the spinal cord do not regenerate
  themselves naturally, nor even under the spur of
  nerve-growth stimulants. The reason, recently dis-
  covered, is the presence of nerve-growth inhibitors
  in the spinal cord. Antibodies that deactivate those
  inhibitors have now been developed. Clearly, then,
  nerve repair will be a standard medical procedure in
  the foreseeable future.

  Which of the following, if true, casts the most serious
  doubt on the accuracy of the prediction above?
  (A) Prevention of the regeneration of damaged
   nerves is merely a by-product of the main
   function in the human body of the substances
   inhibiting nerve growth.
  (B) Certain nerve-growth stimulants have similar
   chemical structures to those of the antibodies
   against nerve-growth inhibitors.
  (C) Nerves in the brain are similar to nerves in the
   spinal cord in their inability to regenerate
   themselves naturally.
  (D) Researchers have been able to stimulate the
   growth of nerves not located in the spinal cord
   by using only nerve-growth stimulants.
  (E) Deactivating the substances inhibiting nerve
   growth for an extended period would require a
   steady supply of antibodies.

The answer is A.

C, D, E is definitely wrong.

But I think B is tricky.

SINCE B SAYS,

Certain nerve-growth stimulants have similar chemical structures to those of the antibodies against nerve-growth inhibitors.

AND WE KNOW THAT 药剂的化学结构相似功能作用相似，

THAT MEANS SO CALLED "nerve-growth stimulants" FUNCTION AS "nerve-growth inhibitors".

THUS B IS A GOOD WEAKEN.

SO CAN ANY NN TELL ME WHY CHOOSE A , NOT B?

THANKS IN ADVANCE.

dorbear · 发表于 2003-9-29 07:18:00

No, we do NOT know anything special until the passage tells us, especially on "药剂的化学结构相似功能作用相似", it goes way too far. We only know from this option that they are similar in structure.

(A) tells us the approach impose the possiblity of deactivating other main functions of the substance while shut down its side-effect.

isuffering · 发表于 2003-9-29 14:03:00

Your line sounds reasonable. But the problem is that

I didn't get your point when I read A, 我太傻了；
while
I go to my point when I read B,我又不傻了。

Maybe the fault is on me.But傻?不傻？It's tricky.

[此贴子已经被作者于2003-10-1 13:34:15编辑过]

tqbiao · 发表于 2005-3-13 21:11:00

i think b not weaken but supports the conclusion.

b tells us that certain n-g stimulants not only can stimulate nerve to growth but also prove n-g inhibitors from inhibiting the n-g to growth.

therefore b suppots the conclusion.

顾风 · 发表于 2006-4-17 15:04:00

我觉得楼上说的support有问题，如果没有weanken，也谈不上support

因为B实际上反映出来说，既然有相似的结构在体内无法生效，怎么能证明这个抗体就有效呢。

我觉得这题重点是 will be a standard medical procedure

换个道理讲：A在于还没搞清楚那个东西倒底是做什么用的，如果随便下药，风险会很大。

而B在于，即使这个抗体无效，顶多只是浪费，或者证明无效，不会有更大的风险。

gracezhong78 · 发表于 2006-8-25 20:53:00

以下是引用顾风在2006-4-17 15:04:00的发言：

我觉得楼上说的support有问题，如果没有weanken，也谈不上support

因为B实际上反映出来说，既然有相似的结构在体内无法生效，怎么能证明这个抗体就有效呢。

我觉得这题重点是 will be a standard medical procedure

换个道理讲：A在于还没搞清楚那个东西倒底是做什么用的，如果随便下药，风险会很大。

而B在于，即使这个抗体无效，顶多只是浪费，或者证明无效，不会有更大的风险。

言之有理!但我的问题是C.

C说了 Nerves in the brain are similar to nerves in the spinal cord in their inability to regenerate themselves naturally.,那就说明不一定是因为The reason, recently discovered, is the presence of nerve-growth inhibitors in the spinal cord.造成nerves的不能regenerate阿，如果前提都错了,那抗体下药的话，就没有作用，就对accuracy否定了啊？这样理解对吗？

[此贴子已经被作者于2006-8-25 20:53:54编辑过]

gonghao · 发表于 2006-8-25 22:20:00

文章就是说是inhibitor导致了其不能生长，只要去掉inhibitor就能使其生长，因此修复神经指日可待。

现在有一个antibotic，它能对inhibitor起抑制作用

其实这个论点得推出，有个permise：inhibitor就是抑制了神经得再生

A说：保护损坏得神经再生是一个抑制神经生长的物质，其生理功能的副产品

这里就是说，inhibitor做了很多事，而使得神经不生长呢是一个副产品

这时候如果去掉inhibitor有其他不可预计的结果。

－－－－－－

C在说大脑神经和椎管里的神经比较相似，他们都不能生长，文章承认其的确不能生长，但是文章说是有东西不能让其生长的，是inhibitor。而grace自己推出来的是其本身不能生长，请问你的依据何在？对于文中inhibitor如果是真的，那么没C也是成立的。不能削弱。

－－－－－－－－－－－

C说的东西不是argument的关注点。

文章就是说是inhibitor导致了其不能生长，只要去掉inhibitor就能使其生长，因此修复神经指日可待。但是这样的直接去处inhibitor带来的其他的影响不确定，这样的情况下，贸然用药是不合适的，因此，并非指日可待。

gracezhong78 · 发表于 2006-8-26 16:49:00

以下是引用gonghao在2006-8-25 22:20:00的发言：

－－－－－－

C在说大脑神经和椎管里的神经比较相似，他们都不能生长，文章承认其的确不能生长，但是文章说是有东西不能让其生长的，是inhibitor。而grace自己推出来的是其本身不能生长，请问你的依据何在？对于文中inhibitor如果是真的，那么没C也是成立的。不能削弱。

－－－－－－－－－－－

我自己也想了一下，应该说C选项是无关项，它只提到了两者的神经相似不能成长，但没有说两者的不能成长的原因是相似的。如果选项中能加入，inhibitor并没有存在在大脑神经中的的这个条件的话，那才可以直接否认前提，就是椎管里的神经不能成长不是因为inhibitor，因为大脑里的神经没有inhititor也不能成长！

xiaowan · 发表于 2006-9-17 22:25:00

gonghao说的棒极了！

iversontan · 发表于 2006-9-18 01:51:00

B完全不起作用,而且是对提干的干扰.提干已经明确说明Antibodies可以使 those
inhibitors deactivate,也就是有作用的,跟结构相似已经没什么关系了.

题目应该是从削弱 Antibodies所起的作用的方面去解,所以A说明了这只是一个by-product的作用

大全-19-6,HELP

大全-19-6,HELP

所属分类: GMAT考试

正在浏览此版块的会员 ()