GWD 5-5 请牛牛帮忙

wayneswm

Exposure to certain chemicals commonly used in elementary schools as
cleaners or pesticides causes allergic reactions in some children.  Elementary school nurses in Renston report
that the proportion of schoolchildren sent to them for treatment of allergic
reactions to those chemicals has increased significantly over the past ten
years.  Therefore, either Renston’s schoolchildren
have been exposed to greater quantities of the chemicals, or they are more
sensitive to them than schoolchildren were ten years ago.

    

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

    

 

    

1. The number
        of school nurses employed by Renston’s elementary schools has not
        decreased over the past ten years.
2. Children
        who are allergic to the chemicals are no more likely than other children
        to have allergies to other substances.
3. Children
        who have allergic reactions to the chemicals are not more likely to be
        sent to a school nurse now than they were ten years ago.
4. The
        chemicals are not commonly used as cleaners or pesticides in houses and
        apartment buildings in Renston.
5. Children
        attending elementary school do not make up a larger proportion of
        Renston’s population now than they did ten years ago.

这道题，请问该如何分析，A为什么不对呢? 

我的想法：把NOt 去掉，A说nurse的数量减少了，那么就有可能每个nurse接的病人就多了，而不是得病的人多了。所以削弱了结论：either Renston’s schoolchildren
have been exposed to greater quantities of the chemicals, or they are more
sensitive to them than schoolchildren were ten years ago.

wayneswm

自己顶个，等待NN的回答！！！

cecila

不是NN

估计你是Ratio没看清楚吧。

题目大致是说 被送医院的过敏学生增加 与 10年来化学物质的增加 这个比例上升了， （这个跟医护人员的人数没有直接关系，没有讨论每个护士接待多少人）

说是推断：要么学生暴露在化学物质下更多了，要么对化学物质更过敏了。

想想漏了什么了呢？ 是不是 过敏学生 不等于 被送医院的过敏学生呢？

所以C说现在学生过敏了可能更容易被送学校这个答案很好，很合适。

[此贴子已经被作者于2008-6-29 23:17:37编辑过]

wayneswm

哦，明白了，谢谢你， cecila