我也有lz同样的疑惑。 OG的解释: B A decline in waiting time would seem to promote more articles about accelerator research being written and published, not fewer. D If the accelerators can be used for multiple experiments, then it is reasonable to expect more articles related to them, not fewer. 解释基本上相同。也就是说,B和D会导致论文数目的上升而不是下降。 而题目的意思是认为论文数量下降的原因是机器少,要削弱,那么就应该说明其原因不是机器少,而是其它。而B和D无法解释论文数量少。 但是只能通过alternative explanation来weaken么?楼主这样的推理为什么不对呢? “B和D是给出了可以让文章增加的条件,也就是说有了这些条件,文章本来是应该增加,但是没有,所以不是加速器的数量问题,这不是削弱吗”
****update*** 今天在网上找了个答案,觉得说的比较有道理。B和D的问题在于否定了题目给出的事实“the decline in availability of particle accelerators”。 *********************************** http://www.beatthegmat.com/cr-og-203-in-physics-journals-particle-accelerators-t16430.html This is a cause and effect type question. In such questions, you need to find the alternative cause that has actually turned out the effect.
So, if we look at the question,
Our facts (premises) are:-
1. In current year, the number of articles on PA is decreased. 2. The availability of PAs to RI were also decreased due to repairing work.
Conclusion:
1. The decrease in the number of articles was due to non-availability of PAs.
Now as I stated in my previous post, you are not suppose to challenge the facts. You need to find the answer that clearly overrides the conclusion without touching the facts given in the argument.
If you look at choice (B),
(B) The average time scientists must wait for access to a particle accelerator has declined over the last several years.
It states that average time of availability of PA to scientists has been decreased, which indirectly means that this year availability of PAs has been increased. It clearly challenge our stated fact (2), which is unacceptable in CR questions. Also according to it, the number of articles should be increased as PAs are easily available. This again challenges the fact (1). Hence, though no matter how promising this choices looks to you but it is certainly wrong. This is GMAT trap.
Now look at choice (E) (E) Recent changes in the editorial policies of several physics journals have decreased the likelihood that articles concerning particle-accelerator research will be accepted for publication.
It give you an alternative cause of declining of the number of articles (fact 1) and it does not touches or negate any of the facts stated above. Also we are talking about the number of articles published this year. Hence recent changes means the changes done this year that could affect the number of articles publication. So there is no timing problem with this choice.
[此贴子已经被作者于2008-12-12 23:48:13编辑过] |