LSAT18I-21-22

albert

Questions 21-22
This country does not need any more restrictions on pollution. In fact, we should abolish those that are currently on the books. In spite of various restrictions, pollution levels have actually increased over the past 40 years. Most importantly, dramatic statistics show that, as pollution levels have increased over this period, the general health of the population has improved rather than deteriorated.
21. Which one of the following assertions, if true, provides the most effective challenge to the author's conclusion?
(A) The general health of this country's population has improved over the past 40 years primarily because of new advances in medicine and nutrition, not because of pollution.
(B) There are several countries in the would in which there have been no restrictions on which there have been no restrictions on pollution over the past 40 years, and pollution levels have actually increased.
(C) Similar statistics show that, in several countries, the general health of the population has improved over the past 40 years, while pollution levels have actually decreased.
(D) Pollution levels would have increased even more than they have and the general health of the population would not have improved as much as it has without the restrictions that have been on the books.
(E) In the period prior to the past 40 years, pollution restrictions were nonexistent in this country and the general health of the population improved at a far slower rate than it did during the past 40 years.
answer: D(why not a or e)

22. The author concludes that there should be no restrictions on pollution partly because
(A) they are no longer needed to improve the general health of the population
(B) they reduce the positive effect that pollution has on the general health of the population
(C) statistics show that as pollution restrictions have increased so have pollution levels
(D) pollution has not yet reached levels that are detrimental to the health of the general population
(E) they are ineffective in lowering pollution levels.
Answer:  E (why not a)

谢谢指教！

siebel

21 AE 都是加强。
22 A? r u kidding?

albert

1 。e怎么会是加强？ 原文论证过程是这样的：
我们国家不需要污染限制了。。因为：即使有污染限制，污染依然上升。。而且更重要的是，即使污染上升，人们的健康提高了。
e的削弱：过去没有污染限制，人们的健康水平提高得比现在慢得多。。言下之意，污染限制不能少。
a的削弱：健康水平的提高是因为科技水平提高了，和有无污染无关。
2。从原文看得出，污染限制的目的是减少污染，但最终是为了提高健康水平（从 Most importantly里看出这个更重要）
而a中指出：A) they are no longer needed to improve the general health of the population
不正说明了因为即使有污染限制，健康水平也在提高。所以并不需要它了吗？

rongchao

1 说法同意,但是E和D相比,D更明显的说出污染限制不存在的情况下,污染水平和人民健康不可能提高到现在的样子
2 我认为they的指代上可能造成你的误解了,它并不是指污染限制不需要了,而是指人们不需要提高健康水平了,而E很直接能够得到解答为什么要解除限制

albert

2. 22. The author concludes that there should be no restrictions on pollution partly because
(A) they are no longer needed to improve the general health of the population

这里的they指的应该是restrictions啊。其他都没有复数名词在句子里了。

siebel

21 结论：不再限制污染。理由：1限制不住 2健康随着污染而改善
A 健康是有改善，主要原因xxx，但不排除污染也起作用。加强。
E sorry。我看错题目。

在仔细一看题目，觉得albert比较正确。D这个选项看前半段像削弱，后半段又看这像加强。胡图ing...

mindfree

1. 原文的结论是restrictions不再有存在的必要, 所有选项中只有D明确地指出restrictions和health&pollution的关系. D也是此类题目的典型答案.

A没有提到restrictions, 而且意思上仅仅是解释了原文中的现象, 和原文没有冲突, 原文中没有说是pollution增加造成了health提高, 只是说两者可以同时发生.

E中提到了restrictions, 但是关于其和health的关系不是很明确, 仅仅是指出了现象:有restrictions, health提高快;没有restrictions, health提高慢. 这里的问题就是没有说明这两者之间存在着causal effects.

D中明确地指出三者之间的causal effects. 是标准答案.

2. 原文没有指出health和restrcitions之间的明确关系, 而是在第二句说明了restrictions没有阻止pollution的加剧. 所以E为答案.

albert

谢谢各位。
mindfree,我还是觉得D当然是最好答案。。但是没有D，E也可作为答案。。因为削弱不一定需要很明显的因果关系。对吗？

hoechst

(E) In the period prior to the past 40 years, pollution restrictions were nonexistent in this country and the general health of the population improved at a far slower rate than it did during the past 40 years.
根本就不对general health 的提高不一定是由pollution restrictions 造成

mindfree

我认为没有D的前提下,E可以算做答案, 因为加强和削弱的范围比较宽, 起一定作用就可以.

请其他人补充.