feifei逻辑133

girlwithwings · 发表于 2009-12-30 14:11:04

Questions 132-133

Nature constantly adjusts the atmospheric carbon level. An increase in the level causes the atmosphere to hold more heat, which causes more water to evaporate from the oceans, which causes increased rain. Rain washes some carbon from the air into the oceans, where it eventually becomes part of the seabed. A decrease in atmosphere carbon causes decreased evaporation from the oceans, which cause less rain, and thus less carbon is washed into the oceans. Yet some environmentalists worry that burning fossil fuels may raise atmospheric carbon to a dangerous level. It is true that a sustained increase would threaten human life. But the environmentalists should relax---nature will continually adjust the carbon level.

133. Which one of the following, if true, would most weaken the argument in the passage?

A. Plant life cannot survive without atmospheric carbon.

B. It is not clear that breathing excess carbon in the atmosphere will have a negative effect on human life.

C. Carbon is part of the chemical “blanket” that keeps the Earth warm enough to sustain human life.

D. Breathing by animals releases almost 30 times as much carbon as does the burning of fossil fuels.

E. The natural adjustment process, which occurs over millions of years, allow wide fluctuations in the carbon level in the short term.

Answer E

In my view, the reasoning in this argument is that:

nature will continually adjust the carbon levelà a sustained increase in the level of carbon would not threaten human life.

E 不是Support吗？它允许Carbon　Level短期内浮动，所以持续增长的Carbon　Level不会影响到人类

herosweet · 发表于 2009-12-30 14:41:45

原文的结论是，我们可以relax了，因为大自然自己会慢慢调节carbon的含量。但是你看E选项，它的意思是说，carbon在短时间内会有较大幅度的变化，这不正好和原文结论相反么？所以weaken了

liverpool123 · 发表于 2009-12-31 02:13:32

文章开头说了自然调节carbon的过程。然后说现在carbon再增加，环境学家担心，作者就根据开头讲的调节过程判断没必要担心。如果开头讲的是真的，那么为什么作者的结论不对呢，那只能是这个调节的过程需要很久，太久了以至于在自然调节carbon含量恢复到平衡的时候，我们human可能都已经消失了。所以E很好的削弱了结论。

girlwithwings · 发表于 2010-1-4 14:46:19

LS讲的还不是十分明白。不好意思

主要觉得文章结构太绕。weaken哪部分不太清楚。
文章说自然会自我调控，再来说carbon增加虽会威胁人类，但是因为它会自我调节，所以不用担心。
那weaken的话是要weaken它不会自我调节或者有其他原因，所以我们还是要担心？
一般weaken 有1 断桥 2 他因 2种方式
这里用什么方式？

能否帮忙分析得更透彻些。

ryanyhu · 发表于 2010-1-4 21:26:40

原文中说：Yet some environmentalists worry that burning fossil fuels may raise atmospheric carbon to a dangerous level.这和E选项中的allow wide fluctuations in the carbon level in the short term是相对应的，所以环境学家worry的事情事实上还是会发生。
文章的结论其实暗含说这种情况不会发生，因此E是削弱结论。

girlwithwings · 发表于 2010-1-6 04:35:08

一針見血。

謝謝LS講解。

feifei逻辑133

所属分类: GMAT考试

正在浏览此版块的会员 ()