还是不明白一道关于GWD解析的，有疑问啊！！！！求NN帮忙！！！路人帮忙！！！

xly878

A major chemical spill occurred 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 five 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’ prediction?



A.The chemical spill five years ago occurred at a time when there were neither Merrick sea turtles nor Merrick sea turtle eggs on Baker’s Beach.

B.Female Merrick sea turtles begin returning to Baker’s Beach to lay their eggs when they are ten years old.

C.Under normal conditions, only a small proportion of hatchling female Merrick sea turtles survive in the ocean until adulthood and return to lay their eggs at Baker’s Beach.

D.Environmental pressures unrelated to the chemical spill have caused a significant decline in the population of one of the several species of sea birds that prey on Merrick sea turtle eggs.

E.After the chemical spill, an environmental group rejected a proposal to increase the Merrick sea turtle population by transferring eggs from Baker’s Beach to nearby beaches that had not been affected by the spill.


答案是B，毫无疑问
但令我不理解的是问题，他到底想让我undermine什么
资料GWD的解析中的意思是undermine environmentalist的观点
但是我从题目问法觉得就是说在文章中已经有言论在反对E的，就是通过说明B的数量还在增加的事实反驳E所说的B的数量会因为化学物质溢出而受到影响，因为题目让我们寻找的是能够undermine文章中反对E的论据（即数量增加的事实），说这个事实站不住脚，所以B指出了这个事实的漏洞

题目是GWD20套里面的

单调唱

我也写错了~55.不过这道题跟OG里一道题很像，就是药效，不能通过近期发生的事情就绝对否定一个观点（因为这个观点并没有一定说近期发生），可能这个观点中描述的现象由于某种原因在未来发生了。

DUKB24

来晚了一步

xly878

转过来弯了，谢谢NN悉心解答。。。。

maestri

这个题干稍微有点绕，意思如下：
化学泄露-->当年所有的海龟蛋都没被孵化--〉五年以来上岸孵化的成年海龟数量增加->结论：很明显，环境保护者以为的海龟数量会变少这一结论没有被发现。
要undermine的是 the argument offered in refutation of the environmentalists’ prediction，即要削弱 与环境保护者意见相反的言论，问题便是“海龟数量会不会变少”

环境保护者：会变少
环境保护者的反对声音：不会变少

答案思路应该是：要证明环境保护者的言论，虽然现在看上去没有变少，那只是暂时没有表现出来罢了。