OG - 48 - 284

madben

Passage 48

(The following is based on material written in 1996.)

The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, signed in 1987 by more than

150 nations, has attained its short-term goals: it has decreased the rate of increase in amounts of

most ozone-depleting chemicals reaching the atmosphere and has even reduced the atmospheric

levels of some of them. The projection that the ozone layer will substantially recover from ozone

depletion by 2050 is based on the assumption that the protocol’s regulations will be strictly

followed. Yet there is considerable evidence of violations, particularly in the form of the release of

ozone-depleting chlorofluorocarbons (CFC’s), which are commonly used in the refrigeration,

heating, and air conditioning industries. These violation reflect industry attitudes; for example, in

the United States, 48 percents of respondents in a recent survey of subscribers to Air Conditioning,

Heating, and Refrigeration News, and industry trade journal, said that they did not believe that

CFC’s damage the ozone layer. Moreover, some in the industry apparently do not want to pay for

CFC substitutes, which can run five times the cost of CFC’s. Consequently, a black market in

imported illicit CFC’s has grown. Estimates of the contraband CFC trade range from 10,000 to

22,000 tons a year, with most of the CFC’s originating in India and China, whose agreements

under the Protocol still allow them to produce CFC’s. In fact, the United States Customs Service

reports that CFC-12 is a contraband problem second only to illicit drugs.

284. The author of the passage compares the smuggling of CFC’s to the illicit drug trade most

likely for which of the following reasons?

(A)    To qualify a previous claim

(B)    To emphasize the extent of a problem

(C)    To provide an explanation for an earlier assertion

(D)    To suggest that the illicit CFC trade, likely the illicit drug trade, will continue to increase
                (B)

(E)    To suggest that the consequences of a relatively little-knows problem are as serious as those of a well-known one

I have no question that answer B is correct. Nevertheless, why is A wrong? According the OG explanation, to qualify a claim is to weaken of soften it. I am totaly confused. My understanding is that to qualify a claim is to support it, and therefore A should be correct. Can somebody explain me why to qualify a claim is to weaken or soften it?

sen4sun

qualify 也有 limit 的意思. 你注意一下. 在OG 中很常出现. 几乎在所有作者态度题中的qualify 都是用来做 limit.

madben

Thanks sen4sun. I also checked the dictionary and found the explanation of qualify. It makes sense now.

1. To describe by enumerating the characteristics or qualities of; characterize.
2. To make competent or eligible for an office, position, or task.
3. To declare competent or capable; certify.
4. To make legally capable; license.
5. To modify, limit, or restrict, as by giving exceptions.
           
6. To make less harsh or severe; moderate. See Synonyms at moderate.
7. Grammar. To modify the meaning of (a noun, for example).