prep 犀牛带追踪项圈的那道题，求大牛指教

shirlypp

In a certain wildlife park, park rangers are able to track the movements of many rhinoceroses because those animals wear radio collars.When, as often happens, a collar slips off, it is put back on.Putting a collar on a rhinoceros involves immobilizing the animal by shooting it with a tranquilizer dart.Female rhinoceroses that have been frequently recollared have significantly lower fertility rates than uncollared females.Probably, therefore, some substance in the tranquilizer inhibits fertility.

In evaluating the argument, it would be most useful to determine which of the following?

A. Whether there are more collared female rhinoceroses than uncollared female rhinoceroses in the park

B. How the tranquilizer that is used for immobilizing rhinoceroses differs, if at all, from tranquilizers used in working with other large mammals

C. How often park rangers need to use tranquilizer darts to immobilize rhinoceroses for reasons other than attaching radio collars

D. Whether male rhinoceroses in the wildlife park lose their collars any more often than the park’s female rhinoceroses do

E. Whether radio collars are the only practical means that park rangers have for tracking the movements of rhinoceroses in the park
不明白是不是这句话In evaluating the argument, it would be most useful to determine which of the following?

翻译错了？不懂为什么要选c

In evaluating the argument, it would be most useful to determine which of the following?

翻译错了？不懂为什么要选c

sdcar2010

The premises: 1) Tranquilizer used during recollarization: Recollared --> tranquilizer used
2) Recollared females have low fertility. Recollared --> low fertility
The conclusion: some substance in the tranquilizer inhibits fertility: tranquilizer used  --> low fertility

For this argument to hold, the assumption is that NOTHING other than the tranquilizer can cause low fertility.

C is the answer since
1) If further evidence shows that never-recollared females who have been tranquilized also have low fertility, then the argument is strengthened.

2) If futher evidence shows that never-recollared females who have been tranquilized do NOT have low fertility, then the argument is weakened.

If we know that the tranquilizer is never used other than collarizing rhinos, the argument is valid.

However, if we know that the tranquilizer is used in other situations on female rhinos, plus the info from the stimulus that these affected female rhinos do not have low fertility rate, then the argument that the tranquilizer causes low fertility in female rhinos will be in trouble.

Therefore, whether tranquilizer is used in other situations is an important information to have for the evaluation of the argument.

As to the strenthening or weakening aspect, you have to look at the conclusion, which links the tranquilizer to low fertility. If new findings add more weight behind the conclusion, it's a strengthener. If new finidings cast doubt on the conclusion, it's a weakener.

shirlypp

好吧，明白了。是前者~~因为如果通过别的方式也经常注射镇定剂，那么镇定剂就不是lower fertility rates 主要原因了

shirlypp

是说用文章来确定选项呢，还是知道某个选项就能更好的评论文章？如果是后者，觉得题干怎么翻译都不通顺~~从句没学好啊~

HarrisZheng

排除掉其它注射镇定剂的可能 就是支持 反之则削弱

评价题可以照支持或者削弱任一方向来做