以下是引用gonghao在2006-9-11 15:08:00的发言：either A and C has its advantage.the conclusion here is :Removing the boxes will reduce the number of prank calls without hampering people’s ability to report a fire. here A much more focus on the "prank" ,meanwhile ,C is specialized on "hampering people’s ability to report a fire" the conclusion will have good effect if the number of prnak calls decrese and the ability to report a fire is not weakened.The success relies on the both of these factros do their jobs. If A become realized ,the number of prnak calls will decrese.If C is the truth ,the ability to report a fire won't be undermined. But here A is a little be tricky here. fire department can trace all alarm calls not only make from private tele- phones and record where they came from but also alarm boxs do.But since the private calls are different from the alarm boxes that have no idea who make the calls ,choice A make some sence to some extent. It's tough question here,and C maybe more concentrated on the the content emphasized in the argument--"without hampering people’s ability to report a fire.".So the reference answer here prefer to C firmly here A much more focus on the "prank" ,meanwhile ,C is specialized on "hampering people’s ability to report a fire" the conclusion will have good effect if the number of prnak calls decrese and the ability to report a fire is not weakened.The success relies on the both of these factros do their jobs. If A become realized ,the number of prnak calls will decrese.If C is the truth ,the ability to report a fire won't be undermined. But here A is a little be tricky here. fire department can trace all alarm calls not only make from private tele- phones and record where they came from but also alarm boxs do.But since the private calls are different from the alarm boxes that have no idea who make the calls ,choice A make some sence to some extent. It's tough question here,and C maybe more concentrated on the the content emphasized in the argument--"without hampering people’s ability to report a fire.".So the reference answer here prefer to C firmly here A much more focus on the "prank" ,meanwhile ,C is specialized on "hampering people’s ability to report a fire" the conclusion will have good effect if the number of prnak calls decrese and the ability to report a fire is not weakened.The success relies on the both of these factros do their jobs. If A become realized ,the number of prnak calls will decrese.If C is the truth ,the ability to report a fire won't be undermined. But here A is a little be tricky here. fire department can trace all alarm calls not only make from private tele- phones and record where they came from but also alarm boxs do.But since the private calls are different from the alarm boxes that have no idea who make the calls ,choice A make some sence to some extent. It's tough question here,and C maybe more concentrated on the the content emphasized in the argument--"without hampering people’s ability to report a fire.".So the reference answer here prefer to C firmly nice point， 接着这位的观点我也有些看法 首先是fire alarm box是什么，我猜测可能是一个有按钮的盒子之类的东西，按下按钮后，消防中心自动收到信息哪里起火了 也就是说，alarm box有两个特性，第一，容易恶作剧；第二，报警能力有限，不能像电话一样，报警人能够实时描述火灾现场，也就是说报警能力弱于电话 那么这样我们看，撤销了box之后，从电话可追踪的角度来讲（A），恶作剧的可能性降低了，同时“没有伤害报警能力” 从描述火警现场的角度讲（C），恶作剧的可能性没有降低（因为没说到私人电话如何能够限制恶作剧），但是报警能力不是“没有受到伤害”，而是加强了，所以它没有涉及到第一个条件，并且过度强化了第二个条件，我觉得是错误的 另外说一句，春田镇是不是就是辛普森一家里那地方啊，ETS有到处摘东西的习惯，不是没可能吧 | 
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2007-9-16 08:29:00
