GMATPrep的一道逻辑题，想不明白，请大家帮忙

rosmarine

Although fullerenes - spherical molecules made entirely of carbon - were first found in the laboratory, they have since been found in nature, formed in fissures of the rare mineral shungite.  Since laboratory systhesis of fullerenes requires distinctive conditions of temperature and pressure, this discovery should give geologists a test case for evaluating hypotheses about the state of the Earth's crust at the time these naturally occuring fullerenes were formed.

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

A. Confirming that the shungite genuinely contained fullerenes took careful experimentation.

B. Some fullerenes have also been found on the remains of a small meteorite that collided with a spacecraft.

C. The mineral shungite itself contains large amounts of carbon, from which the fullerenes apparently formed.

D. The naturally occurring fullerenes are arranged in a previously unknown crystalline structure.

E. Shungite itself is formed only under distinctive conditions.

答案是D。我选了B。实在是对五个答案都没什么概念。谁来教教我？

jandjshi

帮你顶一下. 我也选了B. 知道B哪里可能错, 但不知为何D对. 难道crystalline structure里的fullerenes不是made of carbon?

rosmarine

如果是照你说的crystalline structure里的fullerenes不是made of carbon，那也太夸张了，那得要求多少专业知识啊？

P.S. jandjshi你有没有发现这套prep test好多逻辑题都是OG10里的老题啊？就碰到这一道新题，我就错了，哈哈~

jandjshi

Then we are on the same boat.

我其实还没做Prep呢! 只是来你帖里凑个热闹.

这题真顶怪的.难道crystalline structure不是在Earth's crust里面.或者crystalline的fullerenes和shungite的fullerenes有不同的distinctive conditions of temperature and pressure. 就算是这样, 也不会undermines the argument啊.

汗,等lawyer巨N来.

rosmarine

关键是should give geologists a test case这句话是什么意思？支持地质学家还是反对地质学家？

geologists的hypothesis是不是认为地壳在形成天然fullerenes时期的状态就应该和实验室状态差不多？

入画

是不是因为实验室造出的是球体的，自然界形成的是晶体的，所以二者无可比性？

jandjshi

谢谢入画MM.  

这题出得真是急死人. 我看到spherical molecules, 觉得是说每个fullerenes的个体是spherical. arranged in a previously unknown crystalline structure讲的是fullerenes个体之间的排列, 第一反映觉得他们不矛盾. 当时觉得D是无关选项, 觉得题中并没有提laboratory和shungite里的fullerenes是怎样摆列的.

就算spherical molecules 和crystalline structure的temperature and pressure不一样, 但也不能seriously undermines the argument啊. spherical molecules的temperature and pressure已经知道, 那如过发现了天然的spherical molecules, 就可evaluating hypotheses about the state of the Earth's crust. 只有当spherical molecules和crystalline structure同时产生, 才会不知所措. 但提中有没提 spherical molecules和crystalline structure的temperature and pressure一定是不一样. 害, 是不是哪里卡住了, 头疼ing.

我觉得如果要D对的话, 题中缺了很多信息.

[此贴子已经被作者于2006-4-7 1:14:35编辑过]

jandjshi

噢, 想明白了.

对D仔细多读了几遍.  The naturally occurring fullerenes are arranged in a previously unknown crystalline structure. 关键词是a previously unknown. 所以不管lab里的fullerenes是怎样arrange的, 天然的fullerenes的arrangement一定是不一样的. 而且我觉得D是说所有的天然fullerenes. 因为D没有说清楚是all naturally occurring fullerenes, 所以有会认为shungite里的fullerenes排列方式和Lab里的排列方式是一样的. 后来多看几遍, 发现题中说lab里先有了fullerenes, 然后发现shungite里也有fullerenes, 然后D再补说天然fullerenes的排列是以前都不知道的, 就等于和前面2个(lab里和shungite里)都不一样. 所以D对了.

rosmarine

你真厉害，居然能想通，可是我看了你的说法还是想不通。shungite不是天然的吗？文章说了天然发现的fullerenes只存在于shungite里，除非明确指出shungite不是crystalline structure，不然D还是无法理解。previously unknown,后来发现了天然fullerenes不就known了？总不至于到写这篇文章的时候还不known吧？

司香尉

我觉得D说The naturally occurring fullerenes是in a previously unknown crystalline水晶 structure.，那么就跟the state of the Earth's crust没有关系，所以削弱了结论。

B的说法是削弱了前提，但是在陨星上找了fullerenes，它在其他星球上怎么形成的不能影响作者对这种fullerenes在地球上的自然形成过程的说法，也就是还是能作为一个对the state of the Earth's crust的假设做评估的 test case

记得携隐曾经说过，削弱题的答案，必须一定能够削弱结论，而不是可能可以削弱，可能不能削弱。

汗，本题难就难在生词太多，干扰阅读。

[此贴子已经被作者于2006-4-7 11:16:50编辑过]