Frobisher, a sixteenth-century English explorer, had soil samples from Canada's Kodlunarn Island examined for gold content. Because high gold content was reported, Elizabeth I funded two mining expeditions. Neither expedition found any gold there. Modern analysis of the island's soil indicates a very low gold content. Thus the methods used to determine the gold content of Frobisher's samples must have been inaccurate.
Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?
1, Frobisher, a sixteenth-century Englishexplorer, had soil samples from Canada’s Kodlunarn Island examined for goldcontent. Because high gold content wasreported, Elizabeth I funded two mining expeditions. Neither expedition found any gold there. Modern analysis of the island’s soilindicates a very low gold content. Thusthe methods used to determine the gold content of Frobisher’s samples must havebeen inaccurate.
Which of the following is an assumption onwhich the argument depends?
The gold content of the soil on Kodlunarn Island is much lower today than it was in the sixteenth century.
The two mining expeditions funded by Elizabeth I did not mine the same part of Kodlunarn Island.
The methods used to assess gold content of the soil samples provided by Frobisher were different from those generally used in the sixteenth century.
Frobisher did not have soil samples from any other Canadian island examined for gold content.
Gold was not added to the soil samples collected by Frobisher before the samples were examined.
这道题答案是选的E 不明白答案是什么意思,请高人指点
2, Q19: In Rubaria, excellent health care isavailable to virtually the entire population, whereas very few people inTerland receive adequate medical care. Yet, although the death rate for most diseases is higher in Terland thanin Rubaria, the percentage of the male population that dies fromprostate cancer is significantly higher in Rubaria than in Terland.
Which of the following, if true, most helpsto explain the disparity between the prostate cancer death rate in Rubaria andTerland?
A. Effective treatment of prostate cancer inits early stages generally requires medical techniques available in Rubaria butnot in Terland. B. Most men who have prostate cancer are olderthan the average life expectancy for male inhabitants of Terland. C. Being in poor general health does notincrease one’s risk of developing prostate cancer.
It is possible to decrease one’s risk of getting prostate cancer by eating certain kinds of foods, and such foods are more readily available in Rubaria than in Terland.
Among men in Rubaria, the death rate from prostate cancer is significantly higher for those who do not take full advantage of Rubaria’s health care system than for those who do.
3 Q40: Parland’s alligator population has beendeclining in recent years, primarily because of hunting. Alligators prey heavily on a species offreshwater fish that is highly valued as food by Parlanders, who had hoped thatthe decline in the alligator population would lead to an increase in the numbersof these fish available for human consumption. Yet the population of this fish species has also declined, even thoughthe annual number caught for human consumption has not increased.
Which of the following, if true, most helpsto explain the decline in the population of the fish species?
The decline in the alligator population has meant that fishers can work in some parts of lakes and rivers that were formerly too dangerous.
Over the last few years, Parland’s commercial fishing enterprises have increased the number of fishing boats they use.
Many Parlanders who hunt alligators do so because of the high market price of alligator skins, not because of the threat alligators pose to the fish population.
During Parland’s dry season, holes dug by alligators remain filled with water long enough to provide a safe place for the eggs of this fish species to hatch.
In several neighboring countries through which Parland’s rivers also flow, alligators are at risk of extinction as a result of extensive hunting.
Thanks for your solution, however i am still confused with NO.1 and NO.2 questions. Could you explain more about how does the reasoning for those two questions work?
Q40 Parland’s alligator population has beendeclining in recent years, primarily because of hunting. Alligators prey heavily on a species offreshwater fish that is highly valued as food by Parlanders, who had hoped thatthe decline in the alligator population would lead to an increase in the numbersof these fish available for human consumption. Yet the population of this fish species has also declined, even thoughthe annual number caught for human consumption has not increased.
Which of the following, if true, most helpsto explain the decline in the population of the fish species?
A) The decline in the alligator population has meant that fishers can work in some parts of lakes and rivers that were formerly too dangerous. B) Over the last few years, Parland’s commercial fishing enterprises have increased the number of fishing boats they use. C) Many Parlanders who hunt alligators do so because of the high market price of alligator skins, not because of the threat alligators pose to the fish population. D) During Parland’s dry season, holes dug by alligators remain filled with water long enough to provide a safe place for the eggs of this fish species to hatch. E) In several neighboring countries through which Parland’s rivers also flow, alligators are at risk of extinction as a result of extensive hunting.
This is a paradox question. You need to provide a reason to explain the apparent contradiction. In this case, the number of alligator, which preys on a type of fish, is decreasing. One would think that since the predator (alligator) is decreasing, the prey (the fish) should flourish or at least keep steady. However, the stimulus claims that the prey's number is decreasing, hence the paradox.
Answer D says that decreasing number of alligator also decreases the safe places for the fish eggs to hide. If the eggs hatched decrease, the amount of fish in the next generation will shrink. This explanation links perfectly the decrease of predator and that of the prey, hence reconciles the paradox.