大全B-2 跟贴没人回,只好开新贴了...

lucyzl517

In the years since the city of London imposed strict air-pollution regulations on local industry, the number of bird species seen in and around London has increased dramatically. Similar air-pollution rules should be imposed in other major cities.

Each of the following is an assumption made in the argument above EXCEPT:

(A) In most major cities, air-pollution problems are caused almost entirely by local industry.

(B) Air-pollution regulations on industry have a significant impact on the quality of the air.

(C) The air-pollution problems of other major cities are basically similar to those once suffered by London.

(D) An increase in the number of bird species in and around a city is desirable.

(E) The increased sightings of bird species in and around London reflect an actual increase in the number of species in the area.

不好意思啊...大家都在A,E上纠缠不清，我却困惑D为啥不对。(答案是A)

我觉得鸟数的增长是不是desirable和题目结论没啥关系，鸟数的增减可以反应空气质量是个客观事实，和人类是不是希望它增加没什么关系吧。

如果按取非，人们不希望鸟数增加（比如鸟屎太多），可是“增加”是空气质量好的标志，也可以得出原文的结论--措施应推广到其他城市．

所以我就选了D

请高人帮我讲讲。

[此贴子已经被作者于2006-9-30 6:23:34编辑过]

sinoversion

乍看一下,觉得A也是一个假设...其实A是个陷阱.

文章讲London对local industry施行严格的air-pollution regulations ,所以the number of bird species 增多了.

文章假设可以有如下BCDE,可以用取非检验:

(B) Air-pollution regulations on industry have a significant impact on the quality of the air.

(C) The air-pollution problems of other major cities are basically similar to those once suffered by London.

(D) An increase in the number of bird species in and around a city is desirable.

如果other major cities没有需要An increase in the number of bird species in and around a city 的必要,

则other major cities没有必要推行Air-pollution regulations
        

所以不选D

(E) The increased sightings of bird species in and around London reflect an actual increase in the number of species in the area.

lucyzl517

啊...有点儿明白了,好象我又想太多了.

是不是说题干中是根据鸟的数量来判断是不是要推行regulation,

而不是我自己想象的鸟增加-->空气质量好(自己多余的想法)-->推行regulation?

sinoversion

以下是引用lucyzl517在2006-9-30 15:49:00的发言：

啊...有点儿明白了,好象我又想太多了.

是不是说题干中是根据鸟的数量来判断是不是要推行regulation,

有增加的需要,才有推行的必要,我反而不明白你的意思了

而不是我自己想象的鸟增加-->空气质量好(自己多余的想法)-->推行regulation?

lucyzl517

呵呵...我明白你的意思就行了..

有增加的需要,才有推行的必要这句让我彻底明白了...谢谢侠客帮忙,真是救人于水火啊...

macrohk

In the years since the city of London imposed strict air-pollution regulations on local industry, the number of bird species seen in and around London has increased dramatically.可以这样分析：这句话的前提和结论是什么？前提：In the years since the city of London imposed strict air-pollution regulations on local industry    直接的结论：the number of bird species .......所以结论只是和bird species 有关，完全与air pollution problems无关。A中的air pollution problems是一个无关项。

mytele

我觉得A错在用了太绝对的词“almost entirely by local industry”。
试想如果不是entire，只是80%的污染，难道就不需要做regulation了么？

dick_yang

以下是引用macrohk在2006-10-3 19:36:00的发言：

In the years since the city of London imposed strict air-pollution regulations on local industry, the number of bird species seen in and around London has increased dramatically.可以这样分析：这句话的前提和结论是什么？前提：In the years since the city of London imposed strict air-pollution regulations on local industry    直接的结论：the number of bird species .......所以结论只是和bird species 有关，完全与air pollution problems无关。A中的air pollution problems是一个无关项。

B也是和air pollution有关的