求教prep一逻辑~

frankzhiwei · 发表于 2010-11-16 00:31:57

In a certain wildlife park, park rangers are able to track the movements of many rhinoceroses because those animals wear radio collars.When, as often happens, a collar slips off, it is put back on.Putting a collar on a rhinoceros involves immobilizing the animal by shooting it with a tranquilizer dart.Female rhinoceroses that have been frequently recollared have significantly lower fertility rates than uncollared females.Probably, therefore, some substance in the tranquilizer inhibits fertility.

In evaluating the argument, it would be most useful to determine which of the following?

A. Whether there are more collared female rhinoceroses than uncollared female rhinoceroses in the park

B. How the tranquilizer that is used for immobilizing rhinoceroses differs, if at all, from tranquilizers used in working with other large mammals

C. How often park rangers need to use tranquilizer darts to immobilize rhinoceroses for reasons other than attaching radio collars)

D. Whether male rhinoceroses in the wildlife park lose their collars any more often than the park’s female rhinoceroses do

E. Whether radio collars are the only practical means that park rangers have for tracking the movements of rhinoceroses in the park

感觉是C也不对，即使知道是否有其他原因去打麻醉，导致打的频率受影响
可是题目说的是有substance影响生育，那就是说即使知道频率大小都好，都不能说明是否这种物质导致不育，也许打一次就能不育也许很多次呢~

大家怎么看？？谢谢！

sdcar2010 · 发表于 2010-11-16 02:08:39

The premises: 1) Tranquilizer used during recollarization: Recollared --> tranquilizer used
2) Recollared females have low fertility. Recollared --> low fertility
The conclusion: some substance in the tranquilizer inhibits fertility: tranquilizer used --> low fertility

For this argument to hold, the assumption is that NOTHING other than the tranquilizer can cause low fertility.

C is the answer since
1) If further evidence shows that never-recollared females who have been tranquilized also have low fertility, then the argument is strengthened.

2) If futher evidence shows that never-recollared females who have been tranquilized do NOT have low fertility, then the argument is weakened.

frankzhiwei · 发表于 2010-11-16 09:20:11

知道了！谢谢解答~~~

winzero · 发表于 2010-11-16 11:11:36

- -我没看明白，1) If further evidence shows that never-recollared females who have been tranquilized also have low fertility, then the argument is strengthened.

2) If futher evidence shows that never-recollared females who have been tranquilized do NOT have low fertility, then the argument is weakened. 原因。。。怎么能够评价。。。求sdcar2010解答

woaihenglia · 发表于 2010-11-16 11:24:28

这题说的是weaken还是strength呢
楼上的解释没看懂
C is the answer since
1) If further evidence shows that never-recollared females who have been tranquilized also have low fertility, then the argument is strengthened.
2) If futher evidence shows that never-recollared females who have been tranquilized do NOT have low fertility, then the argument is weakened.
1）怎么能是加强，我看是weaken。文章后段说的是recollar female who has tranquilized has lower fertility than uncollar

sdcar2010 · 发表于 2010-11-16 11:26:29

C) How often park rangers need to use tranquilizer darts to immobilize rhinoceroses for reasons other than attaching radio collars?

If we know that the tranquilizer is never used other than collarizing rhinos, the argument is valid.

However, if we know that the tranquilizer is used in other situations on female rhinos, plus the info from the stimulus that these affected female rhinos do not have low fertility rate, then the argument that the tranquilizer causes low fertility in female rhinos will be in trouble.

Therefore, whether tranquilizer is used in other situations is an important information to have for the evaluation of the argument.

As to the strenthening or weakening aspect, you have to look at the conclusion, which links the tranquilizer to low fertility. If new findings add more weight behind the conclusion, it's a strengthener. If new finidings cast doubt on the conclusion, it's a weakener.

ptlove4ever · 发表于 2011-12-2 16:46:54

正确答案：C 我错选了D。
题目翻译：护林员用追踪器记录犀牛的行踪，追踪器经常会掉，掉了需要重戴，重戴需要注射镇定剂。发现被重戴追踪器的母犀牛比没戴过追踪器的母犀牛繁殖力低，所以断定：镇定剂会降低母犀牛的繁殖力。
推理过程：因为重戴追踪器母犀牛的比没戴过追踪器母犀牛的繁殖力低，重戴追踪器需要打镇定剂，没戴过追踪器的母犀牛自然没打过镇定剂，所以镇定剂使繁殖力降低。
但是“没戴过追踪器的母犀牛自然没打过镇定剂”这句话原文从未提及，这不过是我们的假设，所以只要被推翻，则题目不成立。
C：会不会因为除了重戴追踪器以外的原因，需要给犀牛打镇定剂呢？C中说这个how often就体现了，如果对C回答YES，就是存在这样的可能，很好的反驳了原文结论。如果对C回答NO，则支持原文。因此选择C选项。
题目解析：本题属于典型的现象解释文，反驳：有其他的解释。不是镇定剂让她们的繁殖能力下降。这是一道评价题，应该选择一个选项，对其回答YES和NO将会对结论产生完全相反的影响。
话题关键词：镇定剂，犀牛

本贴相关题目 GMATPrep-2008E2-CR-74 (CXHU)

相关帖子

更多相关帖子

求教prep一逻辑~

所属分类: GMAT考试

正在浏览此版块的会员 ()