大全-1-19,20 (沒人問過! 跪求幫助)

hyte

Archaeologists seeking the location of a legendary siege and destruction of a city are excavating in several possible places, including a middle and a lower layer of a large mound. The bottom of the middle layer contains some pieces of pottery of type 3, known to be from a later period than the time of the destruction of the city, but the lower layer does not.

大全-1-19. Which of the following hypotheses is best supported by the evidence above?

(A) The lower layer contains the remains of the city where the siege took place.

(B) The legend confuses stories from two different historical periods.

(C) The middle layer does not represent the period of the siege.

(D) The siege lasted for a long time before the city was destroyed.（C）

(E) The pottery of type 3 was imported to the city by traders.

大全-1-20. The force of the evidence cited above is most seriously weakened if which of the following is true?

(A) Gerbils, small animals long native to the area, dig large burrows into which objects can fall when the burrows collapse.

(B) Pottery of types 1 and 2, found in the lower level, was used in the cities from which, according to the legend, the besieging forces came.

(C) Several pieces of stone from a lower-layer wall have been found incorporated into the remains of a building in the middle layer.

(D) Both the middle and the lower layer show evidence of large-scale destruction of habitations by fire.（A）

(E) Bronze ax heads of a type used at the time of the siege were found in the lower level of excavation.

我題目看不是很懂~誰能幫我翻一下~解釋一下各個選項的錯誤!!謝謝

[此贴子已经被作者于2006-2-21 16:24:04编辑过]

hyte

有人會嗎？拜託教教我><

yukovan

The premise of the problem is that the locations of the pottery pieces indicat the their historical time ( the lower, the older).

Q19, since the bottom of the middle layer contains the pieces dated a later period after that seige, the conclusion can be drawn that The middle layer does not represent the period of the siege.

Q20, choice A refuted the premise, which made it the best answer.

晴天小狗

谁来解释一下 thx！

看不懂

晴天小狗

Questions 19-20 are based on the following.

Archaeologists seeking the location of a legendary siege and destruction of a city are excavating in several possible places, including a middle and a lower layer of a large mound. The bottom of the middle layer contains some pieces of pottery of type 3, known to be from a later period than the time of the destruction of the city, but the lower layer does not.

大全-1-19.      Which of the following hypotheses is best supported by the evidence above?

(A) The lower layer contains the remains of the city where the siege took place.

(B) The legend confuses stories from two different historical periods.

(C) The middle layer does not represent the period of the siege.

(D) The siege lasted for a long time before the city was destroyed.（C）

(E) The pottery of type 3 was imported to the city by traders.

大全-1-20.      The force of the evidence cited above is most seriously weakened if which of the following is true?

(A) Gerbils, small animals long native to the area, dig large burrows into which objects can fall when the burrows collapse.

(B) Pottery of types 1 and 2, found in the lower level, was used in the cities from which, according to the legend, the besieging forces came.

(C) Several pieces of stone from a lower-layer wall have been found incorporated into the remains of a building in the middle layer.

(D) Both the middle and the lower layer show evidence of large-scale destruction of habitations by fire.（A）

(E) Bronze ax heads of a type used at the time of the siege were found in the lower level of excavation.

请指点...

晴天小狗

原文说在中间层发现了pottery，而这个pottery是在城毁之后才出现的，也就是说这里并不是城所在地？

请nn指出这道题目的逻辑链吧 实在是晕

[此贴子已经被作者于2006-9-17 18:03:29编辑过]

晴天小狗

up

gonghao

时间题

19：中层有碎片，碎片是的出现比城毁要晚，则中层就比毁城晚。所以C，中层代表的时间不是毁城的时间

20：weaken。如果碎片本来是在上层，则中层可能是毁城的时间，但是现在有老鼠挖洞，把上层的碎片弄到了中层，这样的话，依据中层碎片来进行的推理就站不住脚

晴天小狗

以下是引用gonghao在2006-9-19 20:49:00的发言：

时间题

19：中层有碎片，碎片是的出现比城毁要晚，则中层就比毁城晚。所以C，中层代表的时间不是毁城的时间

20：weaken。如果碎片本来是在上层，则中层可能是毁城的时间，但是现在有老鼠挖洞，把上层的碎片弄到了中层，这样的话，依据中层碎片来进行的推理就站不住脚

完全清楚了

谢谢竹子

Bill06

以下是引用yukovan在2006-2-23 11:23:00的发言：

The premise of the problem is that the locations of the pottery pieces indicat the their historical time ( the lower, the older).

Q19, since the bottom of the middle layer contains the pieces dated a later period after that seige, the conclusion can be drawn that The middle layer does not represent the period of the siege.

Q20, choice A refuted the premise, which made it the best answer.

I prefer this explanation