[求助]og140

140.

A report on acid rain concluded, “ Most forests in Canada are not being damaged by acid rain.” Critics of the report insist the conclusion be changed to, “Most forests in Canada do not show visible symptoms of damage by acid rain, such as abnormal loss of leaves, slower rates of growth, or higher mortality.”

Which of the following, if true, provides the best logical justification for the critics’ insistence that the report’s conclusion be changed?

(A) Some forests in Canada are being damaged by acid rain.

(B) Acid rain could be causing damage for which symptoms have not yet become visible.

(C) The report does not compare acid rain damage to Canadian forests with acid rain damage to

forests in other countries.

(D) All forests in Canada have received acid rain during the past fifteen years.

(E) The severity of damage by acid rain differs from forest to forest.

140.

If, as choice B says, acid rain damage could be occurring without there yet being any visible symptoms, the absence of visible symptoms would not justify the conclusion that no damage was occurring. Thus, choice B is the best answer since it justifies the critics’ insistence that the conclusion be changed.

兩個疑惑

盼指點

1.我是按照cwang大牛的分類做的

它把這題歸類於"support"

可題目中問的是"下咧哪個提供最佳的justification....."

應該是假設類型還是support類型????

關於假設類型與support類型該如何區分呢 ???

2 下面關於og的解釋

我實在看不是很懂

盼請指點

Because the authors of the report evidently resist the change being demanded, any claim on which they and their critics are likely to be in agreement cannot provide justification for the change. Choices A, C, D, and E are all claims both parties can agree on, so none of them is correct.

感謝班竹....現在懂了些

不過我對於D

All forests in LACE w:st="on">CanadaLACE> have received acid rain during the past fifteen years.

還是有些疑問

明顯的d和report不合阿....

report說大部分的森林沒有被酸雨傷害

d說所有森林接受酸雨在過去15年中.....

og怎麼說reporters跟critics都support呢???