请教一题infer题

cdwayne · 发表于 2010-8-25 21:34:16

One of the greatdifficulties in establishing animal rights based merely on the fact thatanimals are living things concern scope. If one construes the term “livingthings” broadly, one is bout to bestow rights on organisms that are not animals(e.g.,plants). But if this term is construed narrowly, one is apt to refuserights to organisms that, at least biologically, are considered members of theanimal kingdom.

If the statements above are true, which one of the following can be mostreasonably inferred from them?

(A) Not all animals should be given rights.
(B) One cannot bestow rights on animals without also bestowing rights on atleast some plants.
(C) The problem of delineating the boundary of the set of living thingsinterferes with every attempts to establish animal rights.
(D) Successful attempts to establish rights for all animals are likely eitherto establish rights for some plants or not to depend solely on the observationthat animals are living things. (OA)
(E) The fact that animals are living things is irrelevant to the question ofwhether animals should or should not be accorded rights, because plants areliving things too.
to establish rights for some plants 对应题目的"broadly", 那么not to depend solely on the observation that animals are living things又从何推理呢? 谢谢

cdwayne · 发表于 2010-8-26 08:10:59

please help, i'll appreciate

cdwayne · 发表于 2010-8-30 10:01:02

伤脑筋, 还是没人回, 谢谢大家

hzd515976083 · 发表于 2010-8-30 10:45:55

One of the great difficulties in establishing animal rights based merely on the fact that animals are living things concern scope. If one construes the term “living things” broadly, one is bout to bestow rights on organisms that are not animals(e.g.,plants). But if this term is construed narrowly, one is apt to refuse rights to organisms that, at least biologically, are considered members of the animal kingdom.

If the statements above are true, which one of the following can be most reasonably inferred from them?

个人理解，供参考。
题目的意思是如果仅凭“living things”这一标准来界定动物，有潜在的问题：
（1）如果“living things”的标准较松，那么“living things”就会包括一些植物；
（2）如果“living things”的标准较严，那么“living things”就会排除一些动物。
这说明：
（1）仅凭“living things”这一标准是不足以准确的界定什么是“动物”的，因为做不到“不多不少”，因此需要其他标准；
（2）仅从“living things”这一角度看，至少一些植物与一些动物是一样的，也就是分不清到底是植物还是动物（因此产生了上面两个潜在问题），所以如果能准确的界定植物，也就准确的界定动物了（准确界定后，不是植物的就是动物）。

(A) Not all animals should be given rights. （无关项）
(B) One cannot bestow rights on animals without also bestowing rights on at least some plants. （这是有可能的，只不过如果只用“living things”单一标准，是不可能的，此项易混）
(C) The problem of delineating the boundary of the set of living things interferes with every attempts to establish animal rights.（明显不对）
(D) Successful attempts to establish rights for all animals are likely either to establish rights for some plants or not to depend solely on the observation that animals are living things.
(E) The fact that animals are living things is irrelevant to the question of whether animals should or should not be accorded rights, because plants are living things too.（前后两个半句都有错，很明显）

cdwayne · 发表于 2010-8-31 21:46:44

謝謝!!

bdsjb116 · 发表于 2010-8-31 22:08:32

题目讲的是difficulties, 题目扫一遍也是讲如何difficult
问题是如何与题目所述相一致所以应该选一个提供对策或解释的选项并且不能对题目有明显的反对

这样应该能快速选出来

chris8849 · 发表于 2010-9-1 11:24:42

那D中的some plants为什么不是all呢只有all才可以选出animal啊谢谢

请教一题infer题

所属分类: GMAT考试

正在浏览此版块的会员 ()