ChaseDream
搜索
返回列表 发新帖
00:00:00

Wood smoke contains dangerous toxins that cause changes in human cells. Because wood smoke presents such a high health risk, legislation is needed to regulate the use of open-air fires and wood-burning stoves.

Which of the following, if true, provides the most support for the argument above?

正确答案: E

更多相关帖子

524

帖子

15

好友

4712

积分

ChaseDream

注册时间
2003-03-17
精华
8
解析
查看: 2875|回复: 7
打印 上一主题 下一主题

[讨论]OG11-13

[复制链接]
楼主
发表于 2007-8-14 22:40:00 | 只看该作者

[讨论]OG11-13

13. Wood smoke contains dangerous toxins that cause changes in human cells. Because wood smoke presents such a high health risk, legislation is needed to regulate the use of open-air fires and wood-burning stoves.

Which of the following, if true, provides the most support for the argument above?

A.The amount of dangerous toxins contained in wood smoke is much less than the amount contained in an equal volume of automobile exhaust.

B.Within the jurisdiction covered by the proposed legislation, most heating and cooking is done with oil or natural gas.

C.Smoke produced by coal-burning stoves is significantly more toxic than smoke from wood-burning stoves.

D.No significant beneficial effect on air quality would result if open-air fires were banned within the jurisdiction covered by the proposed legislation.

E.In valleys where wood is used as the primary heating fuel, the concentration of smoke results in poor air quality.

答案E.

我认为B也支持啊:因为立法限制,所以most heating and cooking is done with oil or natural gas.脑筋转不过弯来,请各位指教。

沙发
发表于 2007-8-14 22:55:00 | 只看该作者
答案b的意思是说在这个法案覆盖的区域,绝大多数的取暖和做饭都使用的天然汽和油,也就是说没有用wood,那么出台这么一个法案还有什么意义呢,显然是削弱性。e答案说,因为是个山谷,所以wood产生的烟严重影响了空气质量,当然更应该禁木头燃烧
板凳
 楼主| 发表于 2007-8-15 09:22:00 | 只看该作者

这么说我明白了,谢谢。

地板
发表于 2008-12-1 22:40:00 | 只看该作者
很清楚,我也明白了
5#
发表于 2009-3-21 00:54:00 | 只看该作者

为什么D错呢?

D.No significant beneficial effect on air quality would result if open-air fires were banned within the jurisdiction covered by the proposed legislation.

我对D的理解:

在jurisdiction的辖区, 禁止open-air-fires 没有重大的利益影响,那么也是支持to regulate the use of open-air-fires, 应该也是支持啊?

为什么不正确?

请教。。。

Xieixe

在jurisdiction的辖区, 禁止open-air-fires 没有重大的利益影响,那么也是支持to regulate the use of open-air-fires, 应该也是支持啊?

为什么不正确?

请教。。。

Xieixe

6#
发表于 2009-3-21 01:04:00 | 只看该作者
No significant beneficial effect 是说没有好处。如果禁令没有好处,那么D就是削弱。
7#
发表于 2009-3-22 00:40:00 | 只看该作者
D:There is no advantage in legislation.
8#
发表于 2014-12-25 19:58:09 | 只看该作者
烧木头有毒对身体有害,所有以应该颁布法律禁止用炉子。要加强就要说焚烧木头不好的地方,或者没炉子的地方身体健康,或者身体不好都是由于烧木头导致的。再答题前一定要做pre-thinkingggggggggg
您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 立即注册

Mark一下! 看一下! 顶楼主! 感谢分享! 快速回复:

手机版|ChaseDream|GMT+8, 2024-11-29 00:36
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号

ChaseDream 论坛

© 2003-2023 ChaseDream.com. All Rights Reserved.

返回顶部