GWD 17-11求助

xlina

Some species of Arctic birds are threatened by recent sharp increases in the population of snow geese, which breed in the Arctic and are displacing birds of less vigorous species.  Although snow geese are a popular quarry for hunters in the southern regions where they winter, the hunting season ends if and when hunting has reduced the population by five percent, according to official estimates.  Clearly, dropping this restriction would allow the other species to recover.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the argument?

A.   Hunting limits for snow geese were imposed many years ago in response to a sharp decline in the population of snow geese.

B.    It has been many years since the restriction led to the hunting season for snow geese being closed earlier than the scheduled date.

C.   The number of snow geese taken by hunters each year has grown every year for several years.

D.   As their population has increased, snow geese have recolonized wintering grounds that they had not used for several seasons.

E.    In the snow goose’s winter habitats, the goose faces no significant natural predation.

答案是B,以前也讨论过，但是对于这个思路也没有定论，我看了还是不明白，有人能帮忙看看吗？谢谢。

[此贴子已经被作者于2005-12-8 0:09:50编辑过]

mixtec

哈哈，想破头终于想明白了

题干说：goose威胁到bird的生存。以前有这么一个restriction，只能打5%。现提议把restriction去掉，让hunter猛打，以减少goose的数量，保护bird。

B说：由于restriction导致hunting season提前结束已经是好几年前的事了。

B的言下之意是说：以前很容易打到5%。现在的情况是无论hunter怎么打，都打不满5%，因为基数太大。

因此restriction有也等于没有。

aph7

steveyangxt说的对，偶做的时候没有把B的意思读明白。。。

yangxiaogang

  说实话，我喜欢D

hotlinda

同问,想不通B什么意思?!!

steveyangxt

mm再读读， b是说禁令造成狩猎提前结束已经是几年前的事了。正好相反嘛呵呵呵 是不是

vedder

事情或许是这样的：

1。文章认为geese多了是bird少了原因

2。又认为存在狩猎限制是geese多了的原因

3。b指出，其实这个狩猎限制其实很多年没有被打破过了（狩猎量都未超过5%），所以，现在即使打破了限制，狩猎量也不一定会超过5%，故不一定会减少geese，增加bird

请指教

tomasy

upup

soar

以下是引用vedder在2005-12-16 0:46:00的发言：

事情或许是这样的：

3。b指出，其实这个狩猎限制其实很多年没有被打破过了（狩猎量都未超过5%），所以，现在即使打破了限制，狩猎量也不一定会超过5%，故不一定会减少geese，增加bird

请指教

我的理解正好相反，B指出狩猎总是提前结束已经好几年了，隐含的原因是提前达到5％的狩猎限量（ the hunting season ends if and when hunting has reduced the population by five percent），更深层次的原因是雪鹅多了，支持了原文观点。

cxvv

ETS太阴险了

既考了逻辑又考了语法

弄了陷阱让大家跳

davidli8888

My vote is D, rather than B. The conclusion is, if the restriction, the number of snow geese will come down. But if there are more than one habitats (colonies), even the restriction removed, the number of the geese would, possibally, not come down. -- undermine the argument.

Choice B strengthens the conclusion. The drop of the restriction leads to dramatic reduce in the snow geese.