- UID
- 1135380
- 在线时间
- 小时
- 注册时间
- 2015-7-20
- 最后登录
- 1970-1-1
- 主题
- 帖子
- 性别
- 保密
|
33. Which of the following most logically completes the argument below?
Although the number of large artificial satellites orbiting the Earth is small compared to the number of small pieces of debris in orbit, the large satellites interfere more seriously with telescope observations because of the strong reflections they produce. Because many of those large satellites have ceased to function, the proposal has recently been made to eliminate interference from nonfunctioning satellites by exploding them in space. This proposal, however, is ill conceived, since
(A) many nonfunctioning satellites remain in orbit for years
(B) for satellites that have ceased to function, repairing them while they are in orbit would be
prohibitively expensive
(C) there are no known previous instances of satellites’ having been exploded on purpose
(D) the only way to make telescope observations without any interference from debris in orbit is to use telescopes launched into extremely high orbits around the Earth
(E) a greatly increased number of small particles in Earth’s orbit would result in a blanket of reflections that would make certain valuable telescope observations impossible
这里的疑问是D选项,OG解释说是“This is not a cogent reason for thinking the proposal to be ill convinced. Even if the proposal would not eliminate all interference with ground based telescopes, it might still greatly reduce interference.", 意思是否就是这个选项不强力,无法证明炸毁卫星对地面观测的observations没用?
我个人理解可能是因为这里的without any和文章的eliminate目的不一样,一个是想完全根除干扰,一个只要是去除一定干扰就行了,是否是这个point导致E比D好。
因为之前在XDF上课说是要注意其它原因(特别是有only这一类排外词存在),我就想,倘若这里的D选项去掉any,是否D就比E好了?因为这个时候只有把observations放置到高空才能够观测清楚,也就是说这时候没有其他办法可以起作用,从而否定了E?
|
|