- UID
- 1260324
- 在线时间
- 小时
- 注册时间
- 2017-2-1
- 最后登录
- 1970-1-1
- 主题
- 帖子
- 性别
- 保密
|
据前辈说 CD 论坛里可以提问题,大家讨论解答的。不过本渣没有找到。
就只能在这里 求教大家了,
OG verbal书里的一道题:
Microbiologist: A lethal strain of salmonella recently showed up in a European country, causing an outbreak of illness that killed two people and infected 27 others. Investigators blame the severity of the outbreak on the overuse of antibiotics , since the salmoella bacteria tested were shown to be drug-resistant. But this is unlikely because patients in the country where the outbreak occurred cannot obtain antibiotics to treat illness without a prescription, and the country's doctors prescribe antibiotics lesss readily than do doctors in any other European country.
microb: S在欧洲出现导致了疾病传播。
1.invest: 疾病传播是由于滥用抗生素<--因为细菌是抗药的。
2.但是 (this就近?)invest的说法错了<-- 因为病人没有prescription就无法使用抗生素,而医生也不愿意开出prescription(相比于其他地方)
which would weaken the microbiologist's reasoning?
问weaken microb 的选项,当时就懵了,microb说的啥?
应该是反驳 2 的,(因为1已经被2反驳了)2: doctor's precrip 少 --> anti 少 --> 不是anti过多造成
那么理由可能是 other factors --> anti 多
doctor 不愿意但实际开的多--> anti多
这样的思路可以吗? 是不是费时? (本渣渣还没领悟helr的思路,就直接瞎琢磨了一点)
|
|