- UID
- 651372
- 在线时间
- 小时
- 注册时间
- 2011-7-16
- 最后登录
- 1970-1-1
- 主题
- 帖子
- 性别
- 保密
|
In countries where automobile insurance includes compensation for whiplash injuries sustained in automobile accidents, reports of having suffered such injuries are twice as frequent as they are in countries where whiplash is not covered.Some commentators have argued, correctly, that since there is presently no objective test for whiplash, spurious reports of whiplash injuries cannot be readily identified.These commentators are, however, wrong to draw the further conclusion that in the countries with the higher rates of reported whiplash injuries, half of the reported cases are spurious:clearly, in countries where automobile insurance does not include compensation for whiplash, people often have little incentive to report whiplash injuries that they actually have suffered.
In the argument given, the two boldfaced portions play which of the following roles?
A. The first is evidence that has been used to support a conclusion that the argument criticizes; the second is that conclusion. （A）
B. The first is evidence that has been used to support a conclusion that the argument criticizes; the second is the position that the argument defends.
C. The first is a claim that has been used to support a conclusion that the argument accepts; the second is the position that the argument defends.
D. The first is an intermediate conclusion that has been used to support a conclusion that the argument defends; the second is the position that the argument opposes.
E. The first presents a claim that is disputed in the argument; the second is a conclusion that has been drawn on the basis of that claim.
这道题一直没想明白，从单纯的句子理解来看，开头说了有whiplash injuries 保险的地方发生 报道 whiplash injuries 的频率比没有whiplash injuries 保险的地方高两倍， 第二boldfaced说假的report不容易被辨别
首先the second 是个conclusion 我能理解
但为何the first 就是支持 the conclusion的了呢？
假的report不容易被发现和前面开头提供的evidence有关系吗？
其次就是criticizes这个词 到底这里是批评呢还是单纯的评论？
但我觉得无论是批评还是评论，这段话后面的推理都和"spurious reports of whiplash injuries cannot be readily identified" 无关系啊
后面只是讲的那些没有 whiplash injuries 保险的地方并不是whiplash injuries 几率低，而是他们不想report而已
总之，综上，至今都没不是太明白这段话的逻辑关系，特别是前半段和后半段话的逻辑联系，跪求NN帮俺缕一缕逻辑啊~~
另外题外话，另一道题
In Kravonia, the average salary for jobs requiring a college degree has always been higher than the average salary for jobs that do not require a degree.Over the last few years, the number of Kravonians enrolled in college has been growing steadily.Therefore, the number of Kravonians entering the job market who have at least the qualification of a college degree will eventually be significantly higher than it has been over the last few years.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?
A. Kravonians with more than one college degree earn little more, on average, than do Kravonians with only one college degree.
B. The average number of years Kravonian college students remain enrolled before completing a degree has been increasing over the past several years.
C. Despite the increase in the number of Kravonians attending college, the percentage of the population attending college is lower in Kravonia than in most other countries.
D. In recent years, employers have been requiring college degrees for workers in jobs that were previously performed successfully by Kravonians who did not have college degrees.
E. For many years, employers in Kravonia have had difficulty finding enough college graduates to fill the high-paying jobs that were available.
题目不难，只是没读懂
D. In recent years, employers have been requiring college degrees for workers in jobs that were previously performed successfully by Kravonians who did not have college degrees.
到底在讲什么，可以帮忙翻译一下这句话的意思吗？谢谢啦~
|
|
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2011-10-13 17:33:40
收藏
收藏
楼主