GWD-24-35

Melissa99

24-35: The milk of many mammals contains cannabinoids, substances that are known to stimulate certain receptors in the brain. To investigate the function of cannabinoids, researchers injected newborn mice with a chemical that is known to block cannabinoides from reaching their receptors in the brain. The injected mice showed far less interest in feeding than normal newborn mice do. Therefore, cannabinoids probably function to stimulate the appetite.

Which of the following is an assumption ok which the argument depends?

A)     Newborn mice do not normally ingest any substance other than their mothers’ milk.

B)      Cannabinoids are the only substances in mammals’ milk that stimulate the appetite.

C)     The mothers of newborn mice do not normally make any effort to encourage their babies to feed.

D)     The mild of mammals would be less nutritious if it did not contain cannabinoids.

E)      The chemical that blocks cannabinoids from stimulating their brain receptors does not independently inhibit the appetite.

请教,答案是E，但是如果根据E的说法，象是NOT+WEAKEN.而E如果去掉not,说化学物质通过刺激 receptors 阻碍cannabinoids可以很独立的阻止胃口。并没有达到消弱的效果啊。而文章结论是cannabinoids 可以很好的刺激胃口。奇怪，好像又有点似是而非的觉得是消弱哦。我越做越糊涂。。。

frxiao

Pay attention to E's meaning: It excludes the possibility that the chemical alone does not decrease the appetite. So it somehow supports the argument that it is cannabinoid that inhibits the appetite....

[此贴子已经被作者于2005-5-19 8:55:45编辑过]

Melissa99

i still a little confused.

vanessav

不是典型的取非削弱么？

如果是chemical that blocks cannabinoids from stimulating their brain receptors 引起了cannabinoids ，就削弱了

cannabinoids probably function to stimulate the appetite

mbz

agree with both

frxiao and  vanessav