一道BF逻辑机经题，大家帮忙讨论下，我明天就考了，谢谢

brass20y

Paleontologist: About 2.8 million years ago, many species that lived near the ocean floor suffered substantial population declines.  These declines coincided with the onset of an ice age.  The notion that cold killed those bottom-dwelling creatures outright is misguided, however; temperatures near the ocean floor would have changed very little.  Nevertheless, the cold probably did cause the population declines, though indirectly.  Many bottom-dwellers depended for food on plankton, small organisms that lived close to the surface and sank to the bottom when they died.  Most probably, the plankton suffered a severe population decline as a result of sharply lower temperatures at the surface, depriving many bottom-dwellers of food.

 

约280万年前，ocean floor上的很多物种数量大幅下降，适逢冰川时代的开始。但是，认为寒冷冻死那些bottom-dwelling的动物的观点完全是被误导的；ocean floor附近的温度变化得很少。然而，寒冷可能确实间接地导致了该物种得下降。很多bottom-dwellers依赖于浮游生物（plankton）生存，这是一种生长在表面但死后会沉入底部的有机生物体。很可能，由于表面温度急剧下降这种浮游生物的数量大量减少，从而严重减少了很多bottom-dwellers的食物。

我觉得前一句是claim，结论是"the cold probably did cause the population declines"，后一句是具体的explanation，support结论。

大家讨论讨论，我这样理解是否正确

magicbaby

前一句是show 一个 fact, 后一句是对作者claim的支持论据

magicbaby

我觉得做bold题就是要大脑空空的，跟着作者的思路走

绝版牙牙

bf题搞清两个问题：1、态度；2、作用

态度分两种：1、与作者或者说话人结论相同；2、与作者或者说话人结论相反

作用分两种：1、论据；2、论点

本题中，态度上，两句态度都相同；作用上，两句都是论据

足以做题了

[此贴子已经被作者于2008-6-29 12:43:20编辑过]

benniexu

我也觉得前面一个是FACT，后面一个是论据~

rorarora

Paleontologist: About 2.8 million years ago, many species that lived near the ocean floor suffered substantial population declines.（第一个事实论据, 同第一个观点相反）  These declines coincided with the onset of an ice age.  The notion that cold killed those bottom-dwelling creatures outright is misguided, however;（第一个观点） temperatures near the ocean floor would have changed very little.  Nevertheless, the cold probably did cause the population declines, though indirectly. （第二个观点）
   Many bottom-dwellers depended for food on plankton, small organisms that lived close to the surface and sank to the bottom when they died.  （第二个事实论据，支持第二个观点）Most probably, the plankton suffered a severe population decline as a result of sharply lower temperatures at the surface, depriving many bottom-dwellers of food. （第二个consideration, 支持第二个观点）

hope that would help you.

Good luck.

Remember to tell us whether题库changes.

 

 

 

 

[此贴子已经被作者于2008-6-29 22:33:49编辑过]

mymengming

Paleontologist: About 2.8 million years ago, many species that lived near the ocean floor suffered substantial population declines.[现象fact]  These declines coincided with the onset of an ice age.【结论1】  The
notion that cold killed those bottom-dwelling creatures outright is
misguided, however; temperatures near the ocean floor would have
changed very little.【论据1，支持结论1】  Nevertheless, the cold probably did cause the population declines, though indirectly. 【结论2】 Many
bottom-dwellers depended for food on plankton, small organisms that
lived close to the surface and sank to the bottom when they died. 【principal 或者是premises】 Most
probably, the plankton suffered a severe population decline as a result
of sharply lower temperatures at the surface, depriving many
bottom-dwellers of food.【evidence2，支持结论2】

李傻傻

同意6,7楼的观点

onefi

这明明是Prep2-32的变种题

32. (31313-!-item-!-188;#058&006235)

Paleontologist: About 2.8 million years ago, many species that lived near the ocean floor suffered substantial population declines.  These declines coincided with the onset of an ice age.  The notion that cold killed those bottom-dwelling creatures outright is misguided, however; temperatures near the ocean floor would have changed very little.  Nevertheless, the cold probably did cause the population declines, though indirectly.  Many bottom-dwellers depended for food on plankton, small organisms that lived close to the surface and sank to the bottom when they died.  Most probably, the plankton suffered a severe population decline as a result of sharply lower temperatures at the surface, depriving many bottom-dwellers of food.

In the paleontologist's reasoning, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?

(A) The first introduces the hypothesis proposed by the paleontologist; the second is a judgment offered in spelling out that hypothesis.
(B) The first introduces the hypothesis proposed by the paleontologist; the second is a position that the paleontologist opposes.
(C) The first is an explanation challenged by the paleontologist; the second is an explanation proposed by the paleontologist.
(D) The first is a judgment advanced in support of a conclusion reached by the paleontologist; the second is that conclusion.
(E) The first is a generalization put forward by the paleontologist; the second presents certain exceptional cases in which that generalization does not hold.

这道题的答案是A。我非常不明白。

onefi

谁能帮忙解答一下？