ChaseDream
搜索
12下一页
返回列表 发新帖
00:00:00

The cause of the wreck of the ship Edmund Fitzgeraid in a severe storm on lake Superior is still unknown , when the sunken wreckage of the vessel was round , searchers discovered the hull in two pieces lying close together , The storm's violent waves would have caused separate pieces floating even briefly on the surface to drift apart. Therefore, the breakup of the hull can be ruled out as the cause of the sinking.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument dipends?

正确答案: B

更多相关帖子

524

帖子

15

好友

4712

积分

ChaseDream

注册时间
2003-03-17
精华
8
解析
查看: 6261|回复: 17
打印 上一主题 下一主题

gwd32-1

[复制链接]
楼主
发表于 2006-12-12 00:13:00 | 只看该作者

gwd32-1

1. GWD32-Q1

The cause of the wreck of the ship Edmund Fitzgeraid in a severe storm

on lake Superior is still unknown , when the sunken wreckage of the ves-

sel was round , searchers discovered the hull in two pieces lying close

together , The storm’s violent waves would have caused separate pieces

floating even briefly on the surface to drift apart . Therefore . the breakup

of the null can be ruled out as the cause of the sinking .

 

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument dipends?

           

1) Ships as large as the Edmund Fitzgerald rarely sink except in the

most violent weather.

2) Under water currents at the time of the storm did not move the sepa-

rated pieces of the hull together again .

     3) Pieces of the hull would have sunk more quickly than the intact hull

would have

4) The waves of the storm were not violent enough to have caused the

5) If the ship broke up before sinking , the pieces of the hull would not

have remained on the surface for very long (B)

why????help me!!

沙发
发表于 2006-12-14 13:46:00 | 只看该作者

up!

我选了E

NN help!!

板凳
发表于 2006-12-16 09:30:00 | 只看该作者

我也是菜鸟,但我觉的这个选项不是标准的排除他因么,和题目问题很好的结合啦,E选项无关吧~~

我的问题是storm和sink在文中是前因后果吗???

NN  please~~~~~
地板
发表于 2006-12-17 01:03:00 | 只看该作者
GWD32是什么题啊,没见过啊
5#
发表于 2007-1-11 00:59:00 | 只看该作者

不是NN,不过我是这样想的:如果在风暴来袭的时候,水流没有把原本(被风暴)分开的两段船体残骸move together. 那现在发现两段残骸彼此贴近的事实就可以说明船不是因为遇到风暴被折断而沉没。(因为风暴应该会把两段残骸吹得更散才对) 。 若把这个条件取非,说水流把原本分开的两段残骸又聚集到一起,那样就不能排除船也有遇风暴沉没的可能性。

6#
发表于 2007-6-23 11:23:00 | 只看该作者

B, if not, then prefectly weaken conclusion.

7#
发表于 2007-8-31 13:24:00 | 只看该作者
up
8#
发表于 2008-6-22 14:17:00 | 只看该作者
up
9#
发表于 2008-6-22 16:52:00 | 只看该作者

选 B 没问题,排除他因

E无关

10#
发表于 2008-10-8 17:35:00 | 只看该作者
The storm’s violent waves would have caused separate pieces floating even briefly on the surface to drift apar.
里面的briefly排出了E
您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 立即注册

Mark一下! 看一下! 顶楼主! 感谢分享! 快速回复:

手机版|ChaseDream|GMT+8, 2025-2-17 02:40
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号

ChaseDream 论坛

© 2003-2023 ChaseDream.com. All Rights Reserved.

返回顶部