一道逻辑 不明白很久了,求解^ prep里的

cocodym

Although fullerenes--spherical molecules made entirely of carbon---were first found in the lab, they have since found in nature, formed in fissures of the rare mineral shungite. Since lab synthesis of fullerenes requires distinctive conditions of temperature and pressure, this discovery should give geologists a test case for evaluating hypotheses about of the Earth's crust at the time these naturally occuring fullerenes were formed.

which of following, if true, most seriously undermines the argument?

A Confirming that the shungite genuniely contained fullerenes took careful experimentation.

B Some fullerenes have also been found on the remains of a small meteorite that collided with a spacecraft.

C The mineral shungite itself contains large amounts of carbons, from which the fullerenes apparently formed.

D The naturally occurring fullerenes are arranged in a previously unknown crystalline structure.

E Shungite itself is formed only under distinctive conditions.

我选了E,答案说是d

但是我实在看不出这题到底哪个选项对,,所以选了一个认为最接近的d,但是......希望NN或路过的给小弟提点一下

timego

这题读不太懂                  

celiawxh2008

This one is a hard one and I personally got it wrong as well.

The statement first told you that somthing (fullernes - spherical moleculdes...) originally created in lab (must be a controlled condition), then it was found in nature. In addition, the statement added, in order for this "something" to be created in lab, it must meet a very specific condition (hinting that those found in nature should have went through the same condition as those created in lab. So geologists want to use the implied relationship to conclude the environmental condition of earth around where and when this "something" is created in nature.

To undermine this argument, you must break the implied connection made between lab's condition and earth's condition. Among the answers:

A) careful experimentation needed to confirm the make of shungite content (unrelated, wrong)

B) fullerenes (that something) was found on spacecraft (I chose this one, I thought it hinted that the "something" found in nature could actually be from out space and therefore will be no use to determine earth's condition. But I was wrong.)

C) talking about the ingridients not how it was made (not related to geologists' argument)

D) this "Somthing" found in nature has different make than lab created ones (since diamond and coal are on different in their crystal structure, and both are made out of carbon, but result in very different products through very different condition, a previsouly unknown crystal structure means that its differnt product than that something created in lab, and therefore cannot be concluded made from the same condition.

E) just talked about the something found in nature, made no reference to the lab creation (unrelated)

I know my answer is long, but this, I think, is one of the hardest CR in prep and deserves some attention. Hopefully it helps.

村民乙

我没有选，直接看了答案，偷懒了。应该是d.d指出来自然产生的这个东东和试验室的结构不同，意味着自然产生的这个东东的生成条件可能和试验室的不同，所以损害结论（自然产生的条件与试验室可能一样严酷）的可靠性。其它的选项，或者无关，或者就是加强。

NOTALOSER

3楼的分析很impressive

NOTALOSER

结论说的是：因为fullerenes的形成需要extreme condition，所以应该去evaluating hypothesis about of the earth's crust

大家应该注意到一点，那就是结论中所说的Earth's crust，这个元素非常关键，直接根据它就能够判断最后的答案，不会产生任何争议。

B项说的是fullerenes在外太空的陨石中被发现了，但是外太空的陨石和earth's crust却是没有任何的联系的，无关。

D说的是fullerenes是range in以前未知的晶体结构中，这样一来，结论中所说的去evaluating hypothesis about of the earth's crust就失去了意义。因为晶体结构是不同于earth's crust的，也就是说，即便如结论所说，fullerenes的形成确实需要extreme condition，也不该因为这个原因去evaluating hypothesis about of the earth's crust，而应该是去evaluate那个previously unknown的晶体结构，因此结论被weaken。

E中的shungite也同样是无关。

seaear

我的想法很简单，原题的assumption就是实验室的和自然界的F应该是一样的，否则科学家的推测就失去意义了，那么最weaken的选项就是否定整个前提的。只有D

cocodym

感谢3楼,6楼,7楼为我解惑,明白了