以下是引用卡布奇诺L在2008-5-6 8:58:00的发言：9.Scientists are discussing ways to remove excess carbon dioxide from the atmosphere by increasing the amount that is absorbed by plant life. One plan to accomplish this is to establish giant floating seaweed farms in the oceans. When the seaweed plants die, they will be disposed of by being burned for fuel.Which of the following, if true, would indicate the most serious weakness in the plan above? (A) Some areas of ocean in the Southern Hemisphere do not contain sufficient nutrients to support large seaweed farms. (B) When a seaweed plant is burned, it releases an amount of carbon dioxide comparable to the amount it has absorbed in its lifetime. (C) Even if seaweed farms prove effective, some people will be reluctant to switch to this new fuel. (D) Each year about seven billion tons of carbon dioxide are released into the atmosphere but only about five billion tons are absorbed by plant life. (E) Seaweed farms would make more money by farming seaweed to sell as nutritional supplements than by farming seaweed to sell as fuel.
答案:B
答案:B 答案:B 我也觉得B确实是最佳答案,可我不明白的是C为什么不对, C可以算做是断桥型的削弱啊?!
我也觉得B确实是最佳答案,可我不明白的是C为什么不对, C可以算做是断桥型的削弱啊?! 我也觉得B确实是最佳答案,可我不明白的是C为什么不对, C可以算做是断桥型的削弱啊?! 谢谢!!
谢谢!! 谢谢!! 卡布奇诺,我个人的理解,读题很重要.Scientists are discussing ways to remove excess carbon dioxide from the atmosphere by increasing the amount that is absorbed by plant life,注意是过多carbon dioxide ,你看看B,完全否认了会吸收过的二氧化碳，因为它吸收的与排放的是正好，所以没有吸收掉excess，你再看看c选项在推理链之外，完全无关。有两点可以否认，我们评价的是方案能否有有效，它开头就说方案有效，其次，别人愿不愿意是无关，只要我方案可行，而且别人的影响并没有出现在原文逻辑链中，换句话说，没有说明别人的态度能否决定放案的缺陷，对于其他人的解释我很迷惑。所以干脆直接把思路写出来 还有我觉得最好不要有新东方的什么断桥的思维，应该完全按照原文推理链来
[此贴子已经被作者于2008-5-7 19:10:21编辑过] | 
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2008-5-7 11:21:00
楼主
