求gwd几个题

egwucj

The emission of sulfur dioxide when high-sulfur coal is burned is restricted by law.New coal-burning plants usually comply with the law by installing expensive equipment to filter sulfur dioxide from their emissions.These new plants could save money by installing instead less expensive cleaning equipment that chemically removes most sulfur from coal before combustion.


Which of the following, if known, would be most relevant to evaluating the claim above about how new coal-burning plants could save money?

1. Whether existing oil-burning plants are required to filter sulfur dioxide from their emissions
   
2. Whether the expense of installing the cleaning equipment in a new plant is less than the expense of installing the cleaning equipment in an older plant
   
3. Whether the process of cleaning the coal is more expensive than the process of filtering the emissions
   
4. Whether lawful emissions of sulfur dioxide from coal-burning plants are damaging the environment
   
5. Whether existing plants that use the filtering equipment could replace this equipment with the cleaning equipment and still compete with new plants that install the cleaning equipment
   
   

答案是c，为什么b不对，filter和clean是两个过程还是一个过程的两个说法？谢谢

典座

文章：焚烧硫化煤的时候会放出二氧化硫被法律限制。
一种新的植物是合法的，通过安装很贵的机器过滤二氧化硫。
通过安装便宜的清洁机器来消除植物里的硫，燃烧这些新植物会省钱。

问评价怎么省钱。

猜想：讨论中心是新植物怎么能省钱。所以迷惑选项里一定会有和老植物来对比。(b)
新植物省钱是因为用了便宜的机器，在烧之前就把硫过滤掉，贵的机器是焚烧后过滤硫化物。这就是他俩的不同。
焚烧前过滤→省钱
焚烧后过滤→贵
C：是否清洗煤的过程比过滤排放物更贵？
和猜想完全重合，讨论的就是洗煤（焚烧前）和过滤排放物（焚烧后）那个便宜。只不过文章里说的是折合量中继器，C说的是过程。

个人理解.....

boozy

简而言之，题目是新电厂直接处理煤比处理烟更省钱，哪个选项证明或否定这个观点？

boozy

题干中说，为了达到减排的要求，新电厂用贵的设备去掉煤烟中的二氧化硫，他们本可以用便宜的设备直接从煤中去除硫。

问题是：哪些信息证明新电厂直接处理煤能省钱的说法靠谱？

B拿新旧电厂来对比，题干只说新电厂，跟旧的一点关系都没有，所以B什么都证明不了。

愁予

应该抓住题目中的核心意思。filter是比较贵的，clean是比较便宜的。问题是在比较clean和filter，B中比较新旧设备是没有意义的。文中说的expense是购买价格，C中补充说明clean的运行成本是否过高，这样才能比较安装clean是不是真的比装filter省钱。