再来一道罗机狗求助！#67黑脸

martycai

Astronomer:  Observations of the Shoemaker-Levi comet on its collision course with Jupiter showed that the comet broke into fragments before entering Jupiter’s atmosphere in 1994, but they did not show how big those fragments were.  Nevertheless, some indication of their size can be inferred from spectrographic analyses of Jupiter’s outer atmosphere.  After the fragments’ entry, these analyses revealed unprecedented traces of sulfur.  The fragments themselves almost certainly contained no sulfur, [but astronomers believe that the cloud layer below Jupiter’s outer atmosphere does contain sulfur.]  Since sulfur would have seeped into the outer atmosphere if comet fragments had penetrated this cloud layer, [it is likely that some of the fragments were at least large enough to have passed through Jupiter’s outer atmosphere without being burned up.]
In the astronomer’s argument, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?
A.    The first is a claim that the astronomer seeks to show is true; the second acknowledges a consideration that weighs against the truth of that claim.
B.    The first is a claim that the astronomer seeks to show is true; the second provides evidence in support of the truth of that claim.
C.    The first and the second are each considerations advanced in support of the conclusion of the argument.
D.    The first provides evidence in support of the conclusion of the argument; the second is that conclusion.
E.    The first is a circumstance for which the astronomer seeks to provide an explanation; the second acknowledges a consideration that weighs against the explanation provided by the astronomer.

答案是什么？

快乐小龙

嘎。。。。不好意思
GWD原题的黑脸是这2句

After the fragments’ entry, these analyses revealed unprecedented traces of sulfur.  

sulfur would have seeped into the outer atmosphere if comet fragments had penetrated this cloud layer,

nowwsy

苦了你了。。小龙童鞋。。真的。。。。苦了你了。。。

martycai

题干和选项和GWD一样，但是黑脸部分不同；

GWD原题：

Astronomer:  Observations of the Shoemaker-Levi comet on its collision course with Jupiter showed that the comet broke into fragments before entering Jupiter’s atmosphere in 1994, but they did not show how big those fragments were.  Nevertheless, some indication of their size can be inferred from spectrographic analyses of Jupiter’s outer atmosphere.  After the fragments’ entry, these analyses revealed unprecedented traces of sulfur.  The fragments themselves almost certainly contained no sulfur, but astronomers believe that the cloud layer below Jupiter’s outer atmosphere does contain sulfur.  Since sulfur would have seeped into the outer atmosphere if comet fragments had penetrated this cloud layer, it is likely that some of the fragments were at least large enough to have passed through Jupiter’s outer atmosphere without being burned up.
In the astronomer’s argument, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?
A.    The first is a claim that the astronomer seeks to show is true; the second acknowledges a consideration that weighs against the truth of that claim.
B.    The first is a claim that the astronomer seeks to show is true; the second provides evidence in support of the truth of that claim.
C.    The first and the second are each considerations advanced in support of the conclusion of the argument.
D.    The first provides evidence in support of the conclusion of the argument; the second is that conclusion.
E.    The first is a circumstance for which the astronomer seeks to provide an explanation; the second acknowledges a consideration that weighs against the explanation provided by the astronomer

C （和黑脸符合）

-- by 会员 快乐小龙 (2010/6/21 17:31:32)

倒是黑一个脸呀

快乐小龙

题干和选项和GWD一样，但是黑脸部分不同；

GWD原题：

Astronomer:  Observations of the Shoemaker-Levi comet on its collision course with Jupiter showed that the comet broke into fragments before entering Jupiter’s atmosphere in 1994, but they did not show how big those fragments were.  Nevertheless, some indication of their size can be inferred from spectrographic analyses of Jupiter’s outer atmosphere.  After the fragments’ entry, these analyses revealed unprecedented traces of sulfur.  The fragments themselves almost certainly contained no sulfur, but astronomers believe that the cloud layer below Jupiter’s outer atmosphere does contain sulfur.  Since sulfur would have seeped into the outer atmosphere if comet fragments had penetrated this cloud layer, it is likely that some of the fragments were at least large enough to have passed through Jupiter’s outer atmosphere without being burned up.
In the astronomer’s argument, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?
A.    The first is a claim that the astronomer seeks to show is true; the second acknowledges a consideration that weighs against the truth of that claim.
B.    The first is a claim that the astronomer seeks to show is true; the second provides evidence in support of the truth of that claim.
C.    The first and the second are each considerations advanced in support of the conclusion of the argument.
D.    The first provides evidence in support of the conclusion of the argument; the second is that conclusion.
E.    The first is a circumstance for which the astronomer seeks to provide an explanation; the second acknowledges a consideration that weighs against the explanation provided by the astronomer

C （和黑脸符合）

martycai

到底是什么啊？

快乐小龙

我觉得是B，因为我觉得position1 是结论，不是evidence

-- by 会员 Nickyl86 (2010/6/21 17:06:55)

同意~

nowwsy

汗。。我飘过一句。。。很有可能选项大变噢噢噢噢噢~~哈哈

Nickyl86

我觉得是B，因为我觉得position1 是结论，不是evidence

勇者无疆