prep新92,觉得答案有问题，明明就是无关项啊~~哪位G友帮我解释下？？

ruimiss

92.    
Kate:  The recent decline in numbers of the Tennessee warbler, a North American songbird that migrates each fall to coffee plantations in South America, is due to the elimination of the dense tree cover that formerly was a feature of most South American coffee plantations.
Scott:  The population of the spruce budworm, the warbler's favorite prey in North America, has been dropping.  This is a more likely explanation of the warbler's decline.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously calls Scott's hypothesis into question?
A. The numbers of the Baltimore oriole, a songbird that does not eat budworms but is as dependent on South American coffee plantations as is the Tennessee warbler, are declining.
B. The spruce budworm population has dropped because of a disease that can infect budworms but not Tennessee warblers.
C. The drop in the population of the spruce budworm is expected to be only temporary.
D. Many Tennessee warblers have begun migrating in the fall to places other than traditional coffee plantations.
E. Although many North American songbirds have declined in numbers, no other species has experienced as great a decline as has the Tennessee warbler.
答案是A。D为什么不行？D说许多鸟开始在秋天迁徙到其他地方，不去coffee plantations了
这不就是削弱吗，说明鸟觉得coffee plantations那里不好了所以不去那里了。

A的话我之所以没选，是因为明明在讨论Tennessee warbler这种鸟，却牵扯出另外一种 Baltimore oriole鸟。而且这种鸟还和T不一样，因为它不吃budworms ，不吃的话自然b的减少对它没有影响了啊，但并不能说明T也不受b减少的影响啊。因而两者几乎不存在可比性。
因而我觉得A是无关项。

谁可以帮我解释下？难道说我思路错了？谢谢~~

xushujie

A是一个类比。要驳斥第二个人的论调，说更可能是因为没虫子鸟才不去的论调。就要证明这虫子不影响鸟儿。A里面说另一种Songbird跟这个Tennessee warbler都一样在此地生活（作类比），他们数量减少了，但是他们不吃虫子。既然虫子因素对这Songbird不起作用，那鸟儿数量减少就肯定是因为别的原因。再类比到Tennessee warbler身上，所以这就大大削弱了原句里的那个argument。

1998JIN

脑子都大了，同求问为什么D 不对，我觉得A和D 都是对的啊，而且，，，不是除了类比推理以外不可以举例的吗？？？？比如我说我想干个啥，然后问加强，选项给 隔壁干了个啥成了，这不是错的吗？？？
越来越迷糊了

顿东w

楼上说“A项说的是和warbler相似的一种鸟也减少了不是由于budworm减少，【暗含有其它原因导致和warbler相似的这种鸟数量减少】。”有点道理哈

Austin01

南风吹 发表于 2018-8-19 15:29
（A） states that a bird similar to the Tennessee warbler has experienced a similar decline in numbe ...

同意！               

南风吹

其实这个问题也可以这样来看：
Scott说 warbler数量减少是因为食物（budworm）减少了, budworm减少是因，warbler减少是果。
A项说的是和warbler相似的一种鸟也减少了不是由于budworm减少，暗含有其它原因导致和warbler相似的这种鸟数量减少。
以上两个论述可以简化为： Scott认为 因——>果，而A项认为 第三因（两者无关暗含有第三因素导致果）——>相似果 所以可以削弱
另外需要特别注意的是：you don't have to kill the argument; you just have to provide counterevidence. that is what "call into question" means.

南风吹

（A） states that a bird similar to the Tennessee warbler has experienced a similar decline in numbers. The similarity between the Baltimore oriole and the Tennessee warbler is that both the birds are dependent on the coffee plantations. The difference is that the Baltimore oriole is NOT dependent on the spruce budworms.
Now, if the elimination of the tree cover in the coffee plantation were to be the cause, it would affect both the Tennessee warbler and the Baltimore oriole. Similarly, if the decline in the population of the spruce budworm were to be the cause, then it would affect only the Tennessee warbler, not the Baltimore oriole because the oriole is not dependent on the budworm.
However, the statement shows that even the oriole has experienced a decline in numbers. This indicates that the decline in the population of the budworm is not likely to be the cause for the decline in the numbers of either bird. Thus, Scott's argument is weakened.

络腮虎子

一点个人观点，这个题目，从题干来看，似乎是两个人各自提出了两个观点，这两个观点没有哪一个是通过指出对方的观点有问题来说明自己观点正确的。仔细看题，K和S的观点是通过一个关键词链接的，就是S观点中的more likely。记住这个关键词，我们来看A和D。A中说了另外一个鸟，不吃budworms，但是也依赖coffee plantation，它的数字在下降，这个事实是不是使得S的观点中的budworms减少导致warbler减少的论断比K的观点中的coffee plantation tree cover减少导致warbler减少的论断  更less likely？就算这两种鸟在其他方面具有某些不可比性，这个更less likely显然也是成立的，那么，因此S观点说的more likely就被削弱了。D中只说了第一种鸟开始减少去coffee plantation了，没有与S观点有联系，因此无法削弱S观点中的more likely。总结一下，这道题目的削弱方向，是S观点中的'more likely'

Luziye

Baltimore oriole是 songbird的一种，只是属性不同：不吃budworm而已。

bejamin1111

nice.......
!

avocadodo

zxzxzx720 发表于 2010-5-3 11:01
我觉得你的逻辑错误在于“许多鸟开始在秋天迁徙到其他地方，说明鸟觉得coffee plantations那里不好了所以不 ...

我也犹豫了D~~明白了！A直接指出了不是因为虫子而是另一个原因~~