老prep 第一题就错了，，打击

wynyy2000

Although fullerenes--spherical molecules made entirely of carbon--were first found in the laboratory, they have since been found in nature, formed in fissures of the rare mineral shungite.  Since laboratory synthesis of fullerenes requires distinctive conditions of temperature and pressure, this discovery should give geologists a test case for evaluating hypotheses about the state of the Earth's crust at the time these naturally occurring fullerenes were formed.
Premise: 因为实验室合成的F需要在显著的温度，压力条件
Conclusion: 因此天然的F让地理学家可以验证F形成时，地壳的状况

Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the argument?

(A) Confirming that the shungite genuinely contained fullerenes took careful experimentation. Irrelevant
(B) Some fullerenes have also been found on the remains of a small meteorite that collided with a spacecraft.
(C) The mineral shungite itself contains large amounts of carbon, from which the fullerenes apparently formed.
(D) The naturally occurring fullerenes are arranged in a previously unknown crystalline structure. ? 天然F的结构对于研究当时的地壳的状态有什么联系？
(E) Shungite itself is formed only under distinctive conditions.

答案是D，求解释

bonfin

The assumption of the argument is that the condition adopted by nature to make the F is the same as that used in the lab.

But if the naturally occurring F is a different form from that made in the lab, then the condition to form the naturally occurring F might be different from that to form the synthetic F. Thus, the conclusion is doubtful.

-- by 会员 sdcar2010 (2011/5/30 0:12:19)

thx~

abc268100

thx

huiyuforever

题目结论是，通过实验室的过程，推出自然形成的过程。
D说自然形成的那玩意儿和实验室整出来的结构不一样，所以形成条件可能也不一样，所以结论错误

sdcar2010

discovery: man-made fullerenes, synthetic fullerenes

abc268100

请问这里的discovery指的是什么啊，是什么dscovery

sdcar2010

B is irrelevant to the argument.

What the argument says is that:
1) F is synthesized in the lab.
2) F is found in nature, such as the mineral shungite.
3) Lab synthesis requires special conditions.

Conclusion: Lab synthesis of F can help geologist to evaluating hypotheses about the state of the Earth's crust at the time these naturally occurring fullerenes were formed.

A) does not weaken the ARGUMENT. If F can be formed in outerspace, great. But it does not lead to the conclusion that the F found naturally on Earth was from the outerspace. Pay attention to premise 2). Unless you find evidence which says the F formed in outerspace is the F found in the mineral shungite, the author's argument still holds. He/she does not care about the conditions required to for F in the outerspace. That's out of scope for the current discussion.

wynyy2000

The assumption of the argument is that the condition adopted by nature to make the F is the same as that used in the lab.

But if the naturally occurring F is a different form from that made in the lab, then the condition to form the naturally occurring F might be different from that to form the synthetic F. Thus, the conclusion is doubtful.

-- by 会员 sdcar2010 (2011/5/30 0:12:19)

I sincerely appreciate your reply every time for answering my question ( sometimes the questions i raised are some what stupid cause i did not involve myself in deep reflection about them)
As for this one, How about choice B? I personally think B attacks the conclusion of the argument. Since the conclusion is that scientists can evaluate the state of Earth’s crust through studying the lab synthesis fullerenes. However, if some remains of the fullerenes are the products of collision between meteorites and spacecraft, therefore researchers will not get correct answer about the condition of crust at that time. (in short, B provides a possibility that some remains are not naturally occurred but are regarded so by scientists)

sdcar2010

The assumption of the argument is that the condition adopted by nature to make the F is the same as that used in the lab.

But if the naturally occurring F is a different form from that made in the lab, then the condition to form the naturally occurring F might be different from that to form the synthetic F. Thus, the conclusion is doubtful.