做了这么久的CR, 第一次碰到一个彻底想不明白的题。HELP!!!

aniec

In the vast majority of cases, when people are stopped by airport security clearance, it is because they are carrying small bits of metal, such as coins, that cannot be used as weapons, but are large enough to be picked up by highly sensitive metal detectors. Since virtually everyone carries such pieces of metal, and the weapons that are smuggled onto planes are often not made of metal, highly sensitive metal detectors have outlived their usefulness. Lowering the sensitivity of these metal detectors so that they only detect large pieces of metal would reduce the frequency with which innocent passengers are stopped without hampering security’s ability to screen for weapons.

Which of the following, if true, is most useful to support the claim that this proposal would have its desired effect if it were carried out?

(A) Airport metal detectors, when set to higher levels of sensitivity, will not react to wristwatches, belt buckles, or the small rivets commonly used on travelers’ jeans.

(B) The maintenance and electricity costs associated with metal detectors are far lower when detectors are utilized at a high level of sensitivity than when they are used at a lower level of sensitivity.

(C) A metal detector with a low level of sensitivity can provide more information about what type of weapon a person is carrying, if they are carrying a weapon, than can a metal detector with a high level of sensitivity.

(D) In some cases, passengers who are stopped because they are only carrying coins are found to be smuggling non-metal weapons.

(E) Some weapons that are not made primarily out of metal include small bits of metal used as fasteners or serial number plates.

张疆

对了，一点忘记说了：支持一个结论的表述不一定是这个结论的必要条件（assumption），本题A给出了一个充分条件。哈哈，老美时不时喜欢来点不一样的。

张疆

经过Milochen的启发，我觉得这样解释是否容易被理解些：
proposal是两项：降低无辜者受阻频的同时不妨碍安全系统对武器的过滤。
A提供的答案是：即使提高了灵敏度，系统也能放过手表之类的无害金属物（更何况降低了灵敏度的情况）。
至于C, 只讲了降低了灵敏度时可以有效过滤武器，没有提到是否会降低无辜者受阻频率，所以是无关的。
我理解得对吗？

infinitegrav

1. higher的比较双方是什么? 在这个句子里面找不到，强说是跟highly sensitive比，逻辑、语法上都没有根据
2. higher表示“比较高”，highly直接意思为adv.表示为非常高(to an unusually great extent).也就是说没有比highly在高的档位了，所以higher不是比highly sensitive高的档位。而只是所有档位中“低”“较低”“中”“较高”“高”中的“中”或“较高”，也就是说比highly要lower.

-- by 会员 binghefeng (2010/1/25 9:32:30)

我个人很倾向这个解释

binghefeng

A的意思是，“当设定更高的灵敏度时，传感器也不会对腕表、皮带扣作出反应”。
题目是问：哪个选项支持“新提议会带来正面的结果”
作者提到，他所期望的结果就是：传感器不对硬币腕表一类的日常品作出反应。所以A 应该是正确答案 试着把问题和答案A连成下面的句子，逻辑关系就清楚了。
If the proposal were carried out，Airport metal detectors, when (even) set to higher levels of sensitivity, will not react to wristwatches, belt buckles, or the small rivets commonly used on travelers’ jeans.

-- by 会员 zpfwww (2010/1/21 6:51:21)

如果这么理解，那么就违背前提Premise了。前提背景就说了越高，检测敏感度会越“过于太好”。

binghefeng

区别highly和higher(而不是Highest)，a选项是指把highly降低成higher levels。
C中的其他Info与原题是否鉴别无关。

-- by 会员 binghefeng (2010/1/20 6:45:50)

highly 比higher还高？前面那个是adv修饰后面的sensitive，后面那个是high的更高形式。明显后面的高嘛。

-- by 会员 prayer (2010/1/20 9:49:00)

1. higher的比较双方是什么? 在这个句子里面找不到，强说是跟highly sensitive比，逻辑、语法上都没有根据
2. higher表示“比较高”，highly直接意思为adv.表示为非常高(to an unusually great extent).也就是说没有比highly在高的档位了，所以higher不是比highly sensitive高的档位。而只是所有档位中“低”“较低”“中”“较高”“高”中的“中”或“较高”，也就是说比highly要lower.

zpfwww

A的意思是，“当设定更高的灵敏度时，传感器也不会对腕表、皮带扣作出反应”。
题目是问：哪个选项支持“新提议会带来正面的结果”
作者提到，他所期望的结果就是：传感器不对硬币腕表一类的日常品作出反应。所以A 应该是正确答案 试着把问题和答案A连成下面的句子，逻辑关系就清楚了。
If the proposal were carried out，Airport metal detectors, when (even) set to higher levels of sensitivity, will not react to wristwatches, belt buckles, or the small rivets commonly used on travelers’ jeans.

奋斗GMAT中

感觉是C，因为文中的两个1个原因是武器已经不是金属的了，且会给旅客带来麻烦；敏感的也就没什么用了，而差一点不会降低安全系数，另一个好处是不会太骚扰旅客

prayer

区别highly和higher(而不是Highest)，a选项是指把highly降低成higher levels。
C中的其他Info与原题是否鉴别无关。

-- by 会员 binghefeng (2010/1/20 6:45:50)

highly 比higher还高？前面那个是adv修饰后面的sensitive，后面那个是high的更高形式。明显后面的高嘛。

prayer

C:more information about what type of weapon 这个是无关的，但是只有C将low sensitivity跟high sensitivity比较了。

A:说的是higher的情况，应该是lower才对。

这道题C好像比A更好