OG12 91请教各位！

dinganli2003

91. Environmentalist: The commissioner of the Fish and

Game Authority would have the public believe that

increases in the number of marine fish caught

demonstrate that this resource is no longer

endangered. This is a specious argument, as unsound

as it would be to assert that the ever-increasing rate at

which rain forests are being cut down demonstrates a

lack of danger to that resource. The real cause of the

increased fish-catch is a greater efficiency in using

technologies that deplete resources.

The environmentalist’s statements, if true, best

support which of the following as a conclusion?

(A) The use of technology is the reason for the

increasing encroachment of people on nature.

(B) It is possible to determine how many fish are in

the sea in some way other than by catching fish.

(C) The proportion of marine fish that are caught is

as high as the proportion of rain forest trees

that are cut down each year.

(D) Modern technologies waste resources by

catching inedible fish.

(E) Marine fish continue to be an endangered

resource.

答案为E，我选了B

问题是，E的结论跳跃得也太大了，原题只反映了通过这种方法来判断不合理，并没有说这种鱼endangered了啊。请NN指教！

猪小王

说说我的理解，请NN指正。
E - Environmentlist; C - The commissioner of the Fish and Game Authority

P1: C的观点 － increases in the number of marine fish caught --> this resources is no longer endangered

IC: This is a specious argument 说明E不同意C，use an analogy to point out C's false: the increasing rate at which rain forests are being cut --> a lack of danger to that resource， 类似于某人每个月花20万，就能得出这个人一定能合法赚钱（不一定，可能是靠骗钱度日呢）

P2: E给出解释real cause is using tech to increase the efficiency in catching fish （类似于揭晓答案，此人到底如何弄到这么多钱)

虽然E揭晓了fishing数量增加的原因，但这不是E的conclusion。E的main conclusion是认为C不对，the resource of marine fish is still endangered. （类似于我们最后的结论是此人没有合法的赚钱能力）

(A) The use of technology is the reason for the increasing encroachment of peopleon nature. [exaggerate the topic in issue, and the topic in issue is about marine fishing]

(E) Marine fish continue to be an endangered resource.[yes, this is the main point of the environmentalist]

御寒

Commissioner认为捕鱼量增加是因为鱼不会灭绝，环境学家认为这种说法是错的（no longer endangered是错的），捕鱼量增加的真正原因是使用了有效的科技来捕鱼。

Geranium_Bayy

fanzhengjiushi 发表于 2010-7-30 09:01
题干的公共元素是捕鱼的增加。commissioner的观点是捕鱼的增加证明鱼的资源不受威胁。而环境专家举热带雨林 ...

这里说，是技术的使用导致人打扰了自然，那么这里结论就是人使用技术导致自然（这里可以暂且认为是marine fish）受到破坏，但是这里并没有提到marine　fishes　are　endangered　species这个终极结论。
还有，说是技术导致人打扰了环境，可是打扰环境也没有说一定是坏的结果，甚至产生某个物种灭亡的情况。

joyceinus

这道题问的是conclusion 是什么（也就是argument是什么）。
猛一看，A和E都对， 但是在看下题干，。。。。is no longer endangered. This is a specious argument....，所以conclusion 应该和 endangered 有关，选E。

yiwend2003

这道题是问conclusion的

monoecy

我想请问下~~

OG里解释："would have the public believe "
the phrasing indicates that the environmentalist believes just the reverse.
是什么意思呢？

为什么would have the public believe 就有相反的意思呢？

-- by 会员 jianglindenise (2011/5/10 21:31:13)

這個是語法問題吧, 搭車同問, 爲什麽是would have the public believe 而不是would have the public believed

monoecy

我选的是A，总觉得E挺是有问题的。
逻辑链我总结下：抓到的鱼多了--说明鱼不濒危了--（削弱）其实是捕鱼的技术提高了
E的意思我很明白，但是总觉得不严谨，有可能鱼确实不濒危了和捕鱼技术的提高两个原因造成了抓到的鱼数量增加
XXX不是A了这句话的否定不一定是XXX是A，也可能是XXX是B。
抛砖引玉

-- by 会员 macao417 (2012/3/26 12:06:14)

題目問的是如果environmentalist 的觀點是對的話, 可以推出的結論.
有可能真實的情況如你所說, 魚確實不瀕危了和捕魚技術提高同時作用, 但environmentalist 的觀點卻是反駁了魚不瀕危的說法, 同時提出另一個說法, 即科技提高

mrj1104

文章中完全没有出现人类的入侵这类东西额，，，，这是找conclusion，选项中的东西必须来自于原文。。。

macao417

我选的是A，总觉得E挺是有问题的。
逻辑链我总结下：抓到的鱼多了--说明鱼不濒危了--（削弱）其实是捕鱼的技术提高了
E的意思我很明白，但是总觉得不严谨，有可能鱼确实不濒危了和捕鱼技术的提高两个原因造成了抓到的鱼数量增加
XXX不是A了这句话的否定不一定是XXX是A，也可能是XXX是B。
抛砖引玉