回馈CD：6月28日岳狗（详细）

敦敦酱

Q45，V39，680很尴尬，可能还想再考一次。。。(海外背景数学提分艰难,英语算母语）anyway，one RC was about a tectonic paradox of Venus (金星）. 讲天文科学方面的，可能对英语基础薄弱的UU生僻字比较多. 有些太细节的记不清了。
Paragraph 1:
Consider its atmospheric properties, i.e. sparse atmosphere made Venus especially vulnerable to large meteorite/comet impacts, because large cosmic objects are not degraded by the planet's sparce atmosphere. In theory, these space objects should frequently hit Venus and subsequently leave large crater on the planet, but scientists were only able to find small craters on Venus, not large ones. Thus the paradox is: why is there no large crater on Venus if the planet should be frequently hit by large cosmic objects. 这里要小心一点：我读的时候一开始感觉是作者会怀疑科学家探测金星的方式不对/不完整导致没有发现large crater，但实际上整篇下来作者都没有质疑科学家的意思，也就是作者基本认同了金星上没有大陨石坑这件事。The paragraph also introduced the difference between Earth and Venus, in that precipitation and wind on earth wiped large craters, and that human activity also contributed to the gradual dissapearance of these large craters, but apparently there are no rain/wind/human activity on Venus.
Paragraph 2:
further eloborated on this paradox, 这段主要进一步拆解并且讲述了这个奇怪的现象，有很多专业术语，讲了金星的一些地理特征、熔岩之类的。然后尝试给这个现象一个解释但是很快被否定了。
Some scholars provide hypothesis that tries to explain this paradox. They contend that Venus used to have large craters too, these craters have diminished because of other tectonic activities, especially the frequent volcanic activities (volcanic events are much much more frequent on Venus than on Earth,作者没说这件事，但是知道这个知识对理解段落很有帮助) that brought huge amount of lava to the surface and eroded large craters from earlier impacts. However evidence were found to undermine this hypothesis (意思是如果真的是lava造成了crater 消失，那么则应该怎么样怎么样，这里细节我记不清了，但是这里有题要注意看，我可能就是这里错了丢了分). Thus this strange paradox still remain unaddressed.
Paragraph 3:
2 scholars tried to present a new hypothesis, with some premises and seeming evidence.
another scholar also came up with a different hypothesis, with some reasoning.
Both hypothesis were neither explicitly supported, nor refuted by the author. This paragraph merely introduced 2 possible explanations and the author's opinion is rather neutral. (The author did comment on each hypothesis individually, 这里也有细节题我感觉也是本篇的难点)

Another RC was about downsizing (基本是裁员的意思），相比起金星那篇容易很多，没有那么多天文地理的词汇。

paragraph 1:
in traditional convention, downsizing happens during economic depression，firms consider downsizing the most efficient and direct method to control overall expediture of the firm. However, in recent times, some companies are downsizing even without the presence of economic depression, they simply believe that downsizing can make their companies better off economically, "hey, let's just cut workers so we can save money right? even we are not suffering, we just want to save some cost".简而言之就是以前公司都是经济不行了才会裁员，用于应对危机，而现在的公司就算经济没啥问题也经常裁员，是为了让公司“economically 更好”。
The author immediately presented evidence to undermine the idea that mindlessly downsizing can NOT make companies economically better off, it may have the exact opposite effect: downsizing can hurt companies economically。注意这里有细节题我记得很清楚，问作者认为downsizing cannot achieve什么？有个选项是 cannot lower labor cost。这个是迷惑选项千万别选，作者很明确的意思是labor cost确实可以降低，但是无脑裁员会从别的方面对公司经济造成负面影响。i.e. the workers who survived downsizing (幸存下来的没有被裁掉的员工) feel unsafe and work to limitation, 这里还讲了一两个裁员带来的会造成经济损失的负面影响，注意看具体细节。

Paragraph 2:
So why do firms still mindlessly downsize consider the economic influence is rather detrimental? well, 从众心理，大量公司一旦开始怎么做一件事，其他公司就会很容易开始follow，即使是错的，尤其是有影响力的公司一旦adopt 某种做法，其他公司很容易纷纷效仿. Firms simply consider following the norm to be "the most efficient and safe practice".

总体来说作者是明显的批判态度，非常不认可肆意裁员并给出了很容易理解的理由，然后给出了一个（可能的）解释为什么一大堆公司喜欢裁员（第二段）。

有一道DS：
is xyz a multiple of 3？
1) x + y + z is a multiple of 3.
2) x, y, and z are consecutive integers.
我数学太拉胯了当时没时间做了。后来想这题肯定选B，我一开始选的D。
条件1可以是1+4+4，三个数乘积是16不能被3整除，也可以是1+3+5，三个数乘积15可以被3整除。
条件2明显可以。

ESSENTIALS

太强了！感谢楼主！

努力打工狗

感谢!

bbbbriany77

太詳細了 感謝樓主！