请教逻辑GWD-29-Q37

bethany1989 · 发表于 2010-1-29 15:13:04

Rabbits were introduced to Numa Island in the nineteenth century. Overgrazing by the enormous population of rabbits now menaces the island’s agriculture. The government proposes to reduce the population by using a virus that has caused devastating epidemics in rabbit populations elsewhere. There is, however, a chance that the virus will infect the bilby, an endangered native marsupial. The government’s plan, therefore, may serve the interests of agriculture but will clearly increase the threat to native wildlife.（weaken“对argriculture有益，对wildl威胁”为什么是C——C不是support了吗？）

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

A. There is less chance that the virus will infect domestic animals on Numa than that it will infect bilbies.

B. There are no species of animals on the island that prey on the rabbits.

C. Overgrazing by rabbits endangers many of the plants on which bilbies feed.

D. The virus that the government proposes to use has been successfully used elsewhere to control populations of rabbits.

E. There is no alternative means of reducing the rabbit population that would involve no threat to the bilby.

answer:C?我怎么觉得都不太对。。。

gtr · 发表于 2010-2-5 06:59:46

Rabbits were introduced to Numa Island in the nineteenth century. Overgrazing by the enormous population of rabbits now menaces the island’s agriculture. The government proposes to reduce the population by using a virus that has caused devastating epidemics in rabbit populations elsewhere. There is, however, a chance that the virus will infect the bilby, an endangered native marsupial. The government’s plan, therefore, may serve the interests of agriculture but will clearly increase the threat to native wildlife.（weaken“对argriculture有益，对wildl威胁”为什么是C——C不是support了吗？）

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

A. There is less chance that the virus will infect domestic animals on Numa than that it will infect bilbies.

B. There are no species of animals on the island that prey on the rabbits.

C. Overgrazing by rabbits endangers many of the plants on which bilbies feed.

D. The virus that the government proposes to use has been successfully used elsewhere to control populations of rabbits.

E. There is no alternative means of reducing the rabbit population that would involve no threat to the bilby.

answer:C?我怎么觉得都不太对。。。

-- by 会员 bethany1989 (2010/1/29 15:13:04)

原文是这样说的：
事实1：兔子太多，乱吃所有东西
事实2：毒药能杀兔子，但也可能杀想保护的动物。
结论：政府只顾着农业，不管珍惜动物。
其中的隐含假设就是：珍惜动物只会从农药里收到伤害，得不到好处
但如果事实上，当兔子少了的时候，植物多了，珍稀动物吃的东西多了，对繁殖有大大的好处，那不就说明上面的结论错了么？政府用毒药不仅杀了兔子，其实也在保护珍稀动物啊
其实这就是 C 了。所以C是正确的。

xianyun543 · 发表于 2010-7-22 19:39:35

这题对比了几家的分析后，提出点想法，请帮忙看看是否可以这么理解：（主要是针对原文的Argument的）

The government’s plan, therefore, may serve the interests of agriculture but will clearly increase the threat to native wildlife.

这个Argument，分两部分，前一部分，"may serve the interests of agriculture" 作者写的是May... , 我觉得可以不要理会，反正是可能，反过来除非证明是不可能，要不成立的可能性很大。这题我感觉主要还是集中精力chanllenge 后半段，“will clearly increase the threat to native wildlife”. 这意见很绝对，只要能证伪，或削弱，这题目的就实现了。所以就在选项中直接找能削弱这一部分的好了。

感觉这样这题做起来好理解一些，只是不知道思路对不对，大家讨论一下？？

wangsiwei · 发表于 2010-7-22 21:43:56

非常同意落上的说法。
恩，还有一个题跟这个几乎一抹一样。
不记得题号了，就是说海草外面传过来的，政府打算消灭它们，但是会同时影响稀有鱼类。

夏日之浅浅 · 发表于 2012-4-3 11:34:28

谁能讲讲A呢。。我觉得a也很对的啊

creatokay · 发表于 2012-8-29 02:18:41

谁能讲讲A呢。。我觉得a也很对的啊

-- by 会员夏日之浅浅 (2012/4/3 11:34:28)

我也看到有人说A对的A说 the chance( that virus infect domestic animals on Numa )is less than the chance (that the virus infect bilbies)
也就说：伤害到bilbies(native animals)的几率比伤害到家养动物（指代了本地农业）的大。

A分两部分来看：
1、当真的伤害到bilbies时，也就应了结论（一部分）：government plan increase the threat to native animals，这时，就是加强结论，而绝不是削弱了。同时，virus法还灭了兔子，which 危害到了本地农业，这更加说明了加强。
2、当没伤到bilbies时，我不用多言了，这还是加强了结论。

所以A不能选，C就比较明确了。

我的观点，就是这些，
我的疑问！！！！！！！！！！是这样的，是不是只要有可能加强到argu，就可以直接排除了呢！我觉得应该就是这样的，那A我根本无需多推理的，只需写出1的前半部分（考场上想到a little），直接就可以弃选了。

希望得到答复！！！还有，怎么样才能知道自己写的东西被人回复了呢！可以留言信息我。急啊。

本贴相关题目 TN-19-CR-40 (BFXH)

相关帖子

更多相关帖子

请教逻辑GWD-29-Q37

所属分类: GMAT考试

正在浏览此版块的会员 ()