og11-86

chasedreamtrue

Journalist:In physics journals, the number of articles reporting the results of experiments involving particle accelerators was lower last year than it had been in previous year. Several of the particle accelerators at major research institutions were out of service the year before last for repairs ,so it is likely that the low number of articles was due to the decline in availability of particle accelerators .

Can you help me tranlate it to Chinese.thanks.

ecochem

记者说：在物理期刊中，去年报道有关粒子加速器实验结果的文章数量少于往年。一些在主要研究机构的粒子加速器在前年停止工作用于维修，所以低的文章数量很可能是可以使用的粒子加速器减少造成的。

I hope it's clear enough.

chasedreamtrue

i got it .thanks

yzhao26

up

jack00000

关于A什么什么的文章少了，记住这个就行了

graceguo98

OG11-86

Journalist: In physics journals, the number of articles reporting the results of experiments involving particle accelerators was lower last year than it had been in previous years. Several of the particle accelerators at major research institutions were out of service the year before last for repairs, so it is likely that the low number of articles was due to the decline in availability of particle accelerators.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the journalist’s argument?

(A) Every article based on experiments with particle accelerators that was submitted for publication last year actually was published.
(B) The average time scientists must wait for access to a particle accelerator has declined over the last several years.
(C) The number of physics journals was the same last year as in previous years.
(D) Particle accelerators can be used for more than one group of experiments in any given year.
(E) Recent changes in the editorial policies of several physics journals have decreased the likelihood that articles concerning particle-accelerator research will be accepted for publication.
答案是E，我可以理解

原文结论：可以使用的加速器数量的减少---->相关文章少

问题是哪一个削弱了结论？

D说，加速器可以被使用多个实验---也就是说，反而文章应该多才对，这不是正好削弱了吗？

但是为什么D错呢？

请NN帮忙解释。

谢谢啦啦！

hansomecd

were out of service the year before last

机器前年就坏了，去年的事赖不上了