逻辑问题求助 GWD

smilezhaoyan

GWD题
A major chemical spill occured five years ago at Baker's Beach, the world's sole nesting ground for Merrick sea turtles, and prevented nearly all the eggs laid that year from hatching. Yet the number of adult female Merricks returning to lay their eggs at Baker's Beach has actually increased somewhat since 5 years ago. Clearly, environmentalists' prediction that the world's Merrick population would decline as a result of the spill has proven unfounded.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the argument offered in refutation of the environmentalists' prediciton?

答案是：Female Merrick sea turtles begin returning to Baker's Beach to lay their eggs when they are ten years old.

我想问下这个答案怎么就undermine the argument了？我想了很久都没想明白~

YuanHuang

从这个段子的逻辑来看，作者的判断基于这个assumption：乌龟回来生蛋->蛋就一定会孵化。所以你要undermine这个段子的argument的方法就是要证明这个assumption是错的。乌龟10岁回来生蛋是自然生理需求，而蛋会不会孵化就取决于外力因素，比如说chemical spill。

或者说，文章里是的证据是：乌龟回来lay egg的数量增加，而文章的论据是chemical spill导致了孵化书的减少。很明显的logical gap。

希望这个能帮你理解。

smilezhaoyan

没太明白楼上的意思，麻烦能在讲明白点么？

YuanHuang

It is a tricky question. The answer is a support for the argument that "the number of adult female Merricks returning to lay their eggs at Baker's Beach has actually increased somewhat since 5 years ago". The fact that more turtles come back to lay eggs doesn't imply more eggs are hatched. In fact, "prevented nearly all the eggs laid that year from hatching", which undermines the conclusion.