2006年8月队请进！欢迎大家来讨论

MayFair

以下是引用jiefu在2006-8-29 21:43:00的发言：

刚刚出去散了步,有了一个想法,觉得答案应该是 A. 因为A表明了SPILL的影响并非是在泄露的那一刻,而是有长久的影响.

不管怎样,自己解释通了,心情觉得好舒畅!!!

"prevented nearly all the eggs laid that year from hatching."原文refutation中提到的，A并不能保证后来龟龟也不去这个海岸产卵，而且没孵出来。

D是指不是科学家的预测不对，而是有其他原因。所以削弱了文中的反驳。

不用太纠缠了，重要的是祝你能不但发挥出自己的水平，而且能超水平发挥。

[此贴子已经被作者于2006-8-29 22:32:25编辑过]

littledou

以下是引用无比在2006-8-28 16:38:00的发言：

邮箱里也没有这样一封邮件捏．．．已经过了好久了额．．．．．

我今天收到了。

[此贴子已经被作者于2006-8-30 3:51:20编辑过]

madben

以下是引用jiefu在2006-8-29 10:53:00的发言：

严重同意!!!

另,下面这道CR,有和意见?

Q32:

A major chemical spill occurred five years ago at Baker’s Beach, the world’s sole nesting ground for Merrick sea turtles, and prevented nearly all the eggs laid that year from hatching.  Yet the number of adult female Merricks returning to lay their eggs at Baker’s Beach has actually increased somewhat since five years ago.  Clearly, environmentalists’ prediction that the world’s Merrick population would decline as a result of the spill has proven unfounded.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the argument offered in refutation of the environmentalists’ prediction?

 

 

 

 

1. The chemical spill five years ago occurred at a time when there were neither Merrick sea turtles nor Merrick sea turtle eggs on Baker’s Beach.
2. Female Merrick sea turtles begin returning to Baker’s Beach to lay their eggs when they are ten years old.
3. Under normal conditions, only a small proportion of hatchling female Merrick sea turtles survive in the ocean until adulthood and return to lay their eggs at Baker’s Beach.
4. Environmental pressures unrelated to the chemical spill have caused a significant decline in the population of one of the several species of sea birds that prey on Merrick sea turtle eggs.
5. After the chemical spill, an environmental group rejected a proposal to increase the Merrick sea turtle population by transferring eggs from Baker’s Beach to nearby beaches that had not been affected by the spill.

   Answer:  

I think the answer is B.

The argument offered in refutation of the environmentalist's prediction is based on "Yet the number of adult female Merricks returning to lay their eggs at Baker’s Beach has actually increased somewhat since five years ago". If there is a valid reason that can unlink the increase of returned adult femal Merricks from the predicted decline, it will weaken the argument.

Answer B is correct, in my humble opinion, because it implies that all returned femal Merricks are at least 10 years old and they may have not been impacted by the chemical spill happened 5 years ago. The predicted decline may start in another 5 years because less adult femal Merricks, as a result of the medical spill (no Merricks were laid 10 yeas ago), will return to lay eggs by that time.

Answer D is incorrect because the sea birds prey the eggs not Merricks. It actually strengthens that the Merrick population won't decline, and supports that environmentalist's prediction is unfounded.

[此贴子已经被作者于2006-8-30 4:25:56编辑过]

MayFair

以下是引用madben在2006-8-30 4:17:00的发言：

I think the answer is B.

The argument offered in refutation of the environmentalist's prediction is based on "Yet the number of adult female Merricks returning to lay their eggs at Baker’s Beach has actually increased somewhat since five years ago". If there is a valid reason that can unlink the increase of returned adult femal Merricks from the predicted decline, it will weaken the argument.

Answer B is correct, in my humble opinion, because it implies that all returned femal Merricks are at least 10 years old and they may have not been impacted by the chemical spill happened 5 years ago. The predicted decline may start in another 5 years because less adult femal Merricks, as a result of the medical spill (no Merricks were laid 10 yeas ago), will return to lay eggs by that time.

Answer D is incorrect because the sea birds prey the eggs not Merricks. It actually strengthens that the Merrick population won't decline, and supports that environmentalist's prediction is unfounded.

可是B不能解释为什么龟龟多了呀？如果10年来海滩一回，那数量应该跟以前污染前一样也。不应该出现与污染前的差异呀。

D海鸟吃蛋吃得少了，所以孵出来的龟龟多了呀。

题目需要削弱批评环境学家的人的结论。也就是支持环境学家的结论-化学药物会使龟龟数量减少。但是批评家又指出龟龟的数量增加了。如果能够指出有非化学药物泄漏的原因导致的龟龟增加，就支持了环境学家的结论。D中还特意指出海鸟的减少与化学药物泄漏无关。所以应该是D。

caterpillarcn

answer should be B.

考试去喽！！Cheers!!

顾风

以下是引用littledou在2006-8-30 3:22:00的发言：

我今天收到了。

我也收到了，作文分数5分，够用了。。。

下次就专心准备verbal吧。。。

silviaqiu

老大就是老大哎...下次一定成功!我的作文成绩还没收到呢

caterpillarcn

考回来喽。 小累。。。

caterpillarcn

以下是引用MayFair在2006-8-30 10:48:00的发言：

可是B不能解释为什么龟龟多了呀？如果10年来海滩一回，那数量应该跟以前污染前一样也。不应该出现与污染前的差异呀。

D海鸟吃蛋吃得少了，所以孵出来的龟龟多了呀。

题目需要削弱批评环境学家的人的结论。也就是支持环境学家的结论-化学药物会使龟龟数量减少。但是批评家又指出龟龟的数量增加了。如果能够指出有非化学药物泄漏的原因导致的龟龟增加，就支持了环境学家的结论。D中还特意指出海鸟的减少与化学药物泄漏无关。所以应该是D。

D是无关的，文中是围绕chemical spill来展开的，D项和这个没关系。

MayFair

又和一个逻辑高手讨论过了。终于转过弯来了。

应该是B。龟龟的蛋与女龟龟没什么关系。

D可以作为对环境学家的结论的削弱。

哎，看样不光语法菜，逻辑也挺菜。