ChaseDream
搜索
返回列表 发新帖
00:00:00

Because ethylene dibromide, a chemical used to fumigate grain, was blamed for the high rate of nerve damage suffered by people who work in grain-processing plants, many such plants switched to other chemical fumigants two years ago. Since then, however, the percentage of workers at these plants who were newly diagnosed with nerve damage has not dropped significantly. Therefore, either ethylene dibromide was wrongly blamed or else the new chemicals also cause nerve damage.

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

正确答案: C

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: 3929|回复: 3
打印 上一主题 下一主题

求助:TT GWD 4-11

[复制链接]
楼主
发表于 2007-5-3 15:46:00 | 只看该作者

求助:TT GWD 4-11

Because ethylene dibromide, a chemical used to fumigate grain, was blamed for the high rate of nerve damage suffered by people who work in grain-processing plants, many such plants switched to other chemical fumigants two years ago.  Since then, however, the percentage of workers at these plants who were newly diagnosed with nerve damage has not dropped significantly.  Therefore, either ethylene dibromide was wrongly blamed or else the new chemicals also cause nerve damage.

 

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

 

  1. If the new chemicals cause nerve damage, the nerve damage caused would be different from any nerve damage that ethylene dibromide may cause.
  2. There are no chemical fumigants that are completely safe for workers in grain-processing plants.
  3. If ethylene dibromide causes nerve damage, it does not take two years or longer for that damage to become detectable.
  4. Workers at grain-processing plants typically continue to work there even after being diagnosed with nerve damage.
  5. Workers at grain-processing plants that still use ethylene dibromide continue to have a high rate of nerve damage.

答案是C B为何错?C取非的意思是ED需二年或以上才查出,对原文结论行不成削弱,因为还是有可能要么ED要么new chenmical cause nerve damage。为何是C?

沙发
发表于 2007-5-3 23:59:00 | 只看该作者
以下是引用j96111在2007-5-3 15:46:00的发言:

Because ethylene dibromide, a chemical used to fumigate grain, was blamed for the high rate of nerve damage suffered by people who work in grain-processing plants, many such plants switched to other chemical fumigants two years ago.  Since then, however, the percentage of workers at these plants who were newly diagnosed with nerve damage has not dropped significantly.  Therefore, either ethylene dibromide was wrongly blamed or else the new chemicals also cause nerve damage.

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

  1. If the new chemicals cause nerve damage, the nerve damage caused would be different from any nerve damage that ethylene dibromide may cause.
  2. There are no chemical fumigants that are completely safe for workers in grain-processing plants.
  3. If ethylene dibromide causes nerve damage, it does not take two years or longer for that damage to become detectable.
  4. Workers at grain-processing plants typically continue to work there even after being diagnosed with nerve damage.
  5. Workers at grain-processing plants that still use ethylene dibromide continue to have a high rate of nerve damage.

答案是C B为何错?C取非的意思是ED需二年或以上才查出,对原文结论行不成削弱,因为还是有可能要么ED要么new chenmical cause nerve damage。为何是C?

read the last sentence again: Therefore, either ethylene dibromide was wrongly blamed or else the new chemicals also cause nerve damage.

板凳
 楼主| 发表于 2007-5-4 11:44:00 | 只看该作者
Understand!TKS!
地板
发表于 2007-6-26 16:00:00 | 只看该作者
c
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, 2024-11-26 21:18
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