GWD32-Q1 题干是什么意思啊

cannahere

Q3: GWD32-Q1
The cause of the wreck of the ship Edmund Fitzgeraid in a severe storm on lake Superior is still unknown , when the sunken wreckage of the vessel was found, searchers discovered the hull in two pieces lying close together, The storm’s violent waves would have caused separate pieces floating even briefly on the surface to drift apart. Therefore, the breakup of the null can be ruled out as the cause of the sinking. （后两句没看懂）

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?
A.        Ships as large as the Edmund Fitzgerald rarely sink except in the most violent weather.
B.         Under water currents at the time of the storm did not move the separated pieces of the hull together again.
C.        Pieces of the hull would have sunk more quickly than the intact hull would have
D.        The waves of the storm were not violent enough to have caused the breakup
E.         If the ship broke up before sinking , the pieces of the hull would not have remained on the surface for very long

breatheOo

醒醒Shine 发表于 2014-9-11 10:00
背景：发现两片紧紧相依的残骸
原因：storm wave很强大，一下就会把残骸冲散
结论：the breakup of the nul ...

你解释的好棒，能问一下你用的什么分析方法吗？

醒醒Shine

背景：发现两片紧紧相依的残骸
原因：storm wave很强大，一下就会把残骸冲散
结论：the breakup of the null 不是 the cause of the sinking

这题的感觉很像看美剧侦探片……
本题assumption的方向：要排除storm wave也能让残骸冲到一起去的可能
（assumption就两类方向：结论不成立的情况不存在，即答案B；结论一定成立）

D的错误很明显，题目在论证storm wave对冲散残骸的影响，至于它能不能把船给冲断，属于无关本体逻辑链。

千贺铃

jay871750293 发表于 2013-7-7 16:02
试着翻译一下~
The cause of the wreck of the ship Edmund Fitzgeraid in a severe storm on lake Superio ...

楼上的翻译很赞! 我就是没看懂cause separate pieces floating even briefly on the surface to drift apart.啥意思
看来阅读能力差。

jay871750293

试着翻译一下~
The cause of the wreck of the ship Edmund Fitzgeraid in a severe storm on lake Superior is still unknown , when the sunken wreckage of the vessel was found, searchers discovered the hull in two pieces lying close together.

关于EF在一场严重暴风雨中沉没在S湖的原因至今还未知，当沉入水底的的残骸被发现的时候，研究人员发现两片船身靠的很近，

The storm’s violent waves would have caused separate pieces floating even briefly on the surface to drift apart. Therefore, the breakup of the hull can be ruled out as the cause of the sinking.

（由于）暴风雨强大的浪潮会将哪怕浮在水面上很短时间的碎片冲散开，因此船身破碎不是沉船的原因。其中wave cause SP to drift apart，floating even briefly on the surface，VING就近修饰SP。

知道意思之后ACE很快就可以排除，至于B，D，我认为是B优于D~

ninamikou

T0T 最后一个null应该是HULL吧 我说怎么看都咋不通呢

crown48

文中根据残骸中船体断裂而没有分开推断出当时船体只是由于船体断裂而不是遭遇暴浪而沉没的，因为大浪会使船体断开后瞬间分开很远。而单纯的船身断裂沉没会离得很近。
但是，如果当时就遭遇了大浪船身分开很远了，然后又根据B取非，水流又把已经沉没离得很远的船身吹到一起离的很近，那么就削弱了结论说是由于断裂而造成的结果。取非削弱，正确答案。

-- by 会员 lxc2000 (2010/3/20 15:56:57)

额， 原文最后的结论好像是“船断了并不是船沉的原因”

lxc2000

文中根据残骸中船体断裂而没有分开推断出当时船体只是由于船体断裂而不是遭遇暴浪而沉没的，因为大浪会使船体断开后瞬间分开很远。而单纯的船身断裂沉没会离得很近。
但是，如果当时就遭遇了大浪船身分开很远了，然后又根据B取非，水流又把已经沉没离得很远的船身吹到一起离的很近，那么就削弱了结论说是由于断裂而造成的结果。取非削弱，正确答案。

kathy1989717

那个应该是打错了，我觉得应该是HULL，不是null，最后一句那个词

AliciaHao

我认为，就是说研究人员发现船身一分为二但是靠在一起，而通常风暴会将船身弄断而二者会分开，因为没分开，所以断裂的船身就不是沉船的原因，差不多就是这个意思。基于的假设就是水流不会将分开的船身再冲到一起去。