求助一道真题

carefield

XDF. 新练习题(5),
6. Damaged nerves in the spinal cord do not regenerate themselves naturally, nor even under the spur of nerve-grownth stimulants. The reason, recently discovered, is the presence of nerve-growth inhibitors in the spinal cord. Antibodies that deactivate those inhibitors have now been developed. Clearly, then, nerve repair will be a standard medical prdocedure in the foreseeable future.

Which of the following, if true, casts the most serious doubt on the accuracy of the prediction above?

A. prevention of the regeneration of damaged nerves is merely a by-product of the main function in the human body of the substances inhibiting nerve growth.

B. certain nerve-growth stimulants have similar chemical structures to those of the antibodies against nerve-growth inhibitors.

D Researchs have been able to stimulate the growth of nerve not located in the spinal cord by using only nerve-growth stimulants.

KEY,A;
我选D, 因为原文从修复脊椎神经的新方法------>(所有)神经修复将都是一种标准化的方法,

是概念外延的扩大, D 指出有其它的方法可以修复神经.

请NN帮我看看, 因为我用的是很老的资料, 是不是答案有误啊????

[此贴子已经被作者于2003-8-17 2:22:12编辑过]

1stzhang

答案选A!D答案是 out of scope的.

carefield

可是A 怎么反对了原来的推理的呢?

albert

focus on the relation between evidence and conclusion
evidence: 1. inhibitor in the spinal cord is the cause that damaged nerves can not regenerate themselves naturally..2. scientist have develop a method to deactivate the inhibitor
conclusion: damaged nerve can be repaired

by giving us some other information that inhibitor have other more important function beside the inhibition of  nerves recovering, choice A tell us that deactivating the inhibitor may deter the nerve inhibitor from fulfilling their major function and therefore lead to other problems...So the method scientist developed is unlike to be a standard medical process in future..

D is out of scope. the line of arugment: because inhibitor in the spinal cord  lead to a problem, the inhibitor is deactive, the problem will be eliminated.
even the information in D is true, it can't weaken the argument

good luck

carefield

Many many thanks, albert.

你分析得很有道理, 但我不清楚结论的具体含义了: Clearly, then, nerve repair will be a standard medical prdocedure in the foreseeable future.

我理解成了一种标准的治疗方法, 既一种普遍的, 似乎是唯一的方法.
另外原文的论述的是 " 脊柱神经", 结论是 所有神经..., 是不是有概念扩大化的的嫌疑?

1stzhang

其实：A. prevention of the regeneration of damaged nerves is merely a by-product of the main function in the human body of the substances inhibiting nerve growth这个选项的意思就是substances inhibiting nerve growth并不是prevention of the regeneration of damaged nerves的主要原因。而D是在评价原文的事实，并不是在削弱。

albert

以下是引用carefield在2003-8-17 11:26:00的发言：
Many many thanks, albert.

你分析得很有道理, 但我不清楚结论的具体含义了: Clearly, then, nerve repair will be a standard medical prdocedure in the foreseeable future.

我理解成了一种标准的治疗方法, 既一种普遍的, 似乎是唯一的方法.
另外原文的论述的是 " 脊柱神经", 结论是 所有神经..., 是不是有概念扩大化的的嫌疑?

I think "standard" here means "common used procedure" or "pervasive".. its underlying meaning is that the method scientist developed can be widely applied.

I agree that there is a gap between spinal cord nerves and nerves...However, "nerve repair will be a standard medical prdocedure in the foreseeable future" does not mean that "all damaged nerve" can be repaired..we can safely say that because one type of damaged nerve can be repaired, the nerve repair will be a standard medical procedure...

but if the conclusion is that all damaged nerve will be , it is hoped, repaired, then we should focus on the gap and try to weaken the argument using the gap..

good luck.