My answer is RED, GWD is GREEN.......Why? I got all others correct except these Astronomer: Observations of the Shoemaker-Levi comet on its collision course with Jupiter showed that the comet broke into fragments before entering Jupiter’s atmosphere in 1994, but they did not show how big those fragments were. Nevertheless, some indication of their size can be inferred from spectrographic analyses of Jupiter’s outer atmosphere. After the fragments’ entry, these analyses revealed unprecedented traces of sulfur. The fragments themselves almost certainly contained no sulfur, but astronomers believe that the cloud layer below Jupiter’s outer atmosphere does contain sulfur. Since sulfur would have seeped into the outer atmosphere if comet fragments had penetrated this cloud layer, it is likely that some of the fragments were at least large enough to have passed through Jupiter’s outer atmosphere without being burned up.
In the astronomer’s argument, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?
- The first is a claim that the astronomer seeks to show is true; the second acknowledges a consideration that weighs against the truth of that claim.
- The first is a claim that the astronomer seeks to show is true; the second provides evidence in support of the truth of that claim.
- The first and the second are each considerations advanced in support of the conclusion of the argument.
- The first provides evidence in support of the conclusion of the argument; the second is that conclusion.
- The first is a circumstance for which the astronomer seeks to provide an explanation; the second acknowledges a consideration that weighs against the explanation provided by the astronomer.
Museums that house Renaissance oil paintings typically store them in environments that are carefully kept within narrow margins of temperature and humidity to inhibit any deterioration. Laboratory tests have shown that the kind of oil paint used in these paintings actually adjusts to climatic changes quite well. If, as some museum directors believe, paint is the most sensitive substance in these works, then by relaxing the standards for temperature and humidity control, museums can reduce energy costs without risking damage to these paintings. Museums would be rash to relax those standards, however, since results of preliminary tests indicate that gesso, a compound routinely used by Renaissance artists to help paint adhere to the canvas, is unable to withstand significant variations in humidity. In the argument above, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles? A. The first is an objection that has been raised against the position taken by the argument; the second is the position taken by the argument. B. The first is the position taken by the argument; the second is the position that the argument calls into question. C. The first is a judgment that has been offered in support of the position that the argument calls into question; the second is a circumstance on which that judgment is, in part based. D. The first is a judgment that has been offered in support of the position that the argument calls into question; the second is that position. E. The first is a claim that the argument calls into question; the second is the position taken by the argument. D Critics of certain pollution-control regulations have claimed that the money spent over the last decade in order to reduce emissions of carbon monoxide and of volatile organic compounds has been wasted. The evidence they offer in support of this claim might appear compelling: despite the money spent, annual emissions of these pollutants have been increasing steadily. This evidence is far from adequate, however, since over the last decade a substantial number of new industrial facilities that emit these pollutants have been built. In the reasoning given, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?
- The first identifies a claim that the reasoning seeks to show is false; the second is evidence that has been cited by others in support of that claim.
- The first identifies a claim that the reasoning seeks to show is false; the second is a position for which the reasoning seeks to provide support.
- The first is a position that the reasoning contends is inadequately supported by the evidence; the second is a position for which the reasoning seeks to provide support.
- The first is a position that the reasoning contends is inadequately supported by the evidence; the second is evidence used to support the reasoning’s contention.
- The first is a position that the reasoning contends is inadequately supported by the evidence; the second is evidence that has been used to support that position.

[此贴子已经被作者于2007-4-24 11:58:30编辑过] |