ChaseDream
搜索
返回列表 发新帖
00:00:00

Paleontologist: About 2.8 million years ago, many species that lived near the ocean floor suffered substantial population declines. These declines coincided with the onset of an ice age. The notion that cold killed those bottom-dwelling creatures outright is misguided, however; temperatures near the ocean floor would have changed very little. Nevertheless, the cold probably did cause the population declines, though indirectly. Many bottom-dwellers depended for food on plankton, small organisms that lived close to the surface and sank to the bottom when they died. Most probably, the plankton suffered a severe population decline as a result of sharply lower temperatures at the surface, depriving many bottom-dwellers of food.

In the paleontologist's reasoning, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?

正确答案: A

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: 5376|回复: 7
打印 上一主题 下一主题

boldface题型的问题。

[复制链接]
跳转到指定楼层
楼主
发表于 2011-7-10 22:14:58 | 只看该作者 回帖奖励 |倒序浏览 |阅读模式
Paleontologist: About 2.8 million years ago, many species that lived near the ocean floor suffered substantial population declines. These declines coincided with the onset of an ice age.【现象(不算错)】 The notion that cold killed those bottom-dwelling creatures outright is misguided, however;【观点】 temperatures near the ocean floor would have changed very little.evidence  Nevertheless, the cold probably did cause the population declines, though indirectly.【结论】Many bottom-dwellers depended for food on plankton, small organisms that lived close to the surface and sank to the bottom when they died.principal Most probably, the plankton suffered a severe population decline as a result of sharply lower temperatures at the surface, depriving many bottom-dwellers of food.evidence

In the paleontologist's reasoning, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?

(A) The first introduces the hypothesis proposed by the paleontologist; the second is a judgment offered in spelling out that hypothesis.


(B) The first introduces the hypothesis proposed by the paleontologist; the second is a position that the paleontologist opposes.

(C) The first is an explanation challenged by the paleontologist; the second is an explanation proposed by the paleontologist.

(D) The first is a judgment advanced in support of a conclusion reached by the paleontologist; the second is that conclusion.

(E) The first is a generalization put forward by the paleontologist; the second presents certain exceptional cases in which that generalization does not hold.

我在A和D之间徘徊了好一会儿。正确答案是A。

请问“judgement”到底是什么东西呢?貌似地位比“explanation”高一点,比”conclusion“低一点。这是我个人的想法哈。

希望有人可以帮忙给逻辑boldface题型中的”judgement“下一个定义。谢谢!
收藏收藏 收藏收藏
沙发
 楼主| 发表于 2011-7-10 22:16:23 | 只看该作者
神马情况?
最后两排的字怎么这么小~!@!#@~#¥
再发一次:

请问“judgement”到底是什么东西呢?貌似地位比“explanation”高一点,比”conclusion“低一点。这是我个人的想法哈。

希望有人可以帮忙给逻辑boldface题型中的”judgement“下一个定义。谢谢!
板凳
 楼主| 发表于 2011-7-11 14:03:49 | 只看该作者
我再自顶一下,希望有好心人现身呐~~~
地板
发表于 2011-7-24 15:32:08 | 只看该作者
哎················hypothesis  judgment  conclusion  explanation  generalization  都是些神马啊·········
5#
发表于 2011-7-24 15:56:55 | 只看该作者
我觉得重点是后面那个offered in spelling out that hypothesis

judgment本身区分意思没必要吧。。
6#
发表于 2011-7-24 19:59:33 | 只看该作者
我觉得你自己都在原文中标注了第二个boldface是evidence了,但是d中却说第二个是conclusion ,不是矛盾了吗。而a中的意思就是第二个bf就是为了spell out 第一个bf的意思
7#
发表于 2012-8-10 12:40:28 | 只看该作者
好可伶呀 我也同问=w=
8#
发表于 2012-12-25 15:33:23 | 只看该作者

【stimulus翻譯】
2.8m
年之前,許多物種突然減少了。這個減少和冰河世紀出現同時發生。但是,對於是寒冷讓這些殺死動物的觀點是不對的;如果是這樣的話,溫度應該不會變太多,但實際上溫度變化很大。

但是,雖然不是直接的因素,寒冷的確促使了動物數量的減少。

許多bd以浮游生物為食,浮游生物是生活在海面上,當它們死了以後就會沉到海底的。

更加可能的是,浮游生物因為表面寒冷而使得數量銳減,進而減少了db的食物來源。



RonD的解釋】

D——(d) is backwards.
(d) states that #1 supports #2, when in fact the argument is written in such a way that #2 supports #1.




RonA解釋】
the conclusion of this passage is "the cold probably did cause the population declines, though indirectly".
once you figure out that's the conclusion, there are only two answer choices left in play: (a) and (b), the only two choices that actually say that's the conclusion (the "hypothesis proposed by the paleontologist").
note that "a generalization" and "an explanation" are not going to represent conclusions. a "judgment" could be a conclusion, but not in the case of choice (d), because there it's followed immediately by "...in support of X".
between (a) and (b), you don't have to think that hard. choice (a) says that the second boldface is for the conclusion, while choice (b) says the second boldface is against the conclusion. since the former is true - the second boldface is the rationale behind the paleontologist's hypothesis - you go with (a).
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, 2024-11-6 15:31
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