求大神讲解！

PrWazInce · 发表于 2018-7-26 18:24:07

OG2018 CR622
Increased use of incineration is sometimes advocated as a safe way to dispose of chemical waste. But opponents of incineration point to the 40 incidents involving unexpected releases of dangerous chemical agents that were reported just last year at two existing incinerators commissioned to destroy a quantity of chemical waste material. Since designs for proposed new incinerators include no additional means of preventing such releases, leaks will only become more prevalent if use of incineration increases.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

A
At the two incinerators at which leaks were reported, staff had had only cursory training on the proper procedures for incinerating chemical waste.
B
Other means of disposing of chemical waste, such as chemical neutralization processes, have not been proven safer than incineration.
C
The capacity of existing incinerators is sufficient to allow for increased incineration of chemical waste without any need for new incinerators.
D
The frequency of reports of unexpected releases of chemical agents at newly built incinerators is about the same as the frequency at older incinerators.
E
In only three of the reported incidents of unexpected chemical leaks did the releases extend outside the property on which the incinerators were located.

答案是A
conclusion：leaks will only become more prevalent if use of incineration increases.
A我能理解排放危险物不是设备的问题而在于人为操作
我纠结C 现有的设备能满足日益增长的焚烧需求就不需要新的设备了这样不也是对conclusion进行了削弱？（虽然焚烧需求增加了，但排放危险物并没有变得普遍，因为只限于涉事的两台设备）

求大神讲解一下类似问题的思路，感激不尽！

PrWazInce · 发表于 2018-7-26 20:28:11

顶！求大神帮忙看一下！

cycgundam · 发表于 2018-7-31 00:05:21

结论：随着燃烧炉使用愈发频繁，有害化学物质的泄露只会越来越严重。
前提：新的燃烧炉设计中并没有优化防止有害物泄露的手段（机制）。

捋一捋思路：作者认为有害物的泄露只会严重不会减轻，因为作者认为这是燃烧炉的设计问题。所以燃烧炉使用越多，有害频率就会越高。

A），从削弱前提和结论的必然联系来削弱这个逻辑。并不是因为燃烧炉设计的问题而导致有害物的泄露，而是因为操作人员经验少，使用不当所导致。所以问题不在机器，而在人。

B），其余手段有效与否和本逻辑没有直接的关联。而且该选项还指出其余手段也没有更好作用，即便有关，也起不到削弱作用。

C），C选项并不能产生削弱或支持作用。记住，作者认为燃烧炉的问题在于其一些防有害物的机制；而现有燃烧炉工作吞吐量与能否防害并没有任何关联，起不到支持或削弱。

D），有害物报告的频率与本逻辑没有关联。

E），有害物泄露的范围和本逻辑无关，而且40起中3起事件的一些共性并不具有代表性，无法对整个40起事件产生决定影响。

PrWazInce · 发表于 2018-8-1 00:18:05

cycgundam 发表于 2018-7-31 00:05
结论：随着燃烧炉使用愈发频繁，有害化学物质的泄露只会越来越严重。
前提：新的燃烧炉设计中并没有优化防 ...

转过弯了谢谢！

ohgigiiii · 发表于 2019-9-23 15:44:28

cycgundam 发表于 2018-7-31 00:05
结论：随着燃烧炉使用愈发频繁，有害化学物质的泄露只会越来越严重。
前提：新的燃烧炉设计中并没有优化防 ...

同意！

求大神讲解！

所属分类: GMAT考试

正在浏览此版块的会员 ()