没找到出处的题

liu977

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 recently been made to eliminate interference from nonfunctioning satellites by exploding them in space. This proposal, however, is ill conceived, since     .

many nonfunctioning satellites remain in orbit for years

for satellites that have ceased to function, repairing them while they are in orbit would be prohibitively expensive

there are no known previous instances of satellites’ having been exploded on purpose

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

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

偶用的是携隐JJ的那套无重复GWD，所以有些题跟原来的不大一样，这题就没有找到出处，麻烦大家给个答案或链接什么的，劳烦啦

liu977

没人理～～555555555，自己ding一个。。。

jeffshixj

The answer is E

liu977

Thanks, but I can't make sense about this question, can you tell me why?

jerrold0023

原文说卫星影响干扰观测，建议把它们炸掉。但这个建议是不合理的，因为...

ABCD均无关。

E地球轨道上大量增加的小碎片会使某些观测无法进行。

D项有干扰。但原文在讨论炸卫星的建议是否合理；而D却说“要想完全摆脱干扰，就要把卫星发到high orbit上去”，无法对炸卫星的建议提出支持或驳斥，所以无关。

liu977

楼上的果然厉害，都猜到我是栽在哪个干扰项上了，现在明白E的含义了，原来理解有误。

可是还是不能说服自己舍弃D，因为D是用断桥的方式削弱呀，即要达到减少干扰的办法只有bla,bla,bla，因此说明炸掉大卫星壳 (呵呵，粗略翻译）的方法达不到预期目的，从而削弱啊。。。

请指教

liu977

呼呼，又回去读了一遍题，突然明白了：原题的方案要解决的是去掉废弃卫星对观测站的干扰，而不是完全去除观测站的干扰，即很可能除了大卫星，其他一些东东也可带来干扰，但以不属于本题探讨范围，就是所谓的out scope

看看这次理解对否。。。

jerrold0023

以下是引用liu977在2005-7-19 18:35:00的发言：
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 recently been made to eliminate interference from nonfunctioning satellites by exploding them in space. This proposal, however, is ill conceived, since     .

1. many nonfunctioning satellites remain in orbit for years


2. for satellites that have ceased to function, repairing them while they are in orbit would be prohibitively expensive


3. there are no known previous instances of satellites’ having been exploded on purpose


4. 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


5. 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

偶用的是携隐JJ的那套无重复GWD，所以有些题跟原来的不大一样，这题就没有找到出处，麻烦大家给个答案或链接什么的，劳烦啦

邻居说的有理！严重同意！

这应该就是大家说的“结论的特殊性”吧！