A major chemical spill occurred five years ago at Baker’s Beach, the world’s sole nesting ground for Merrick sea turtles, and prevented nearly all the eggs laid that year from hatching. Yet the number of adult female Merricks returning to lay their eggs at Baker’s Beach has actually increased somewhat since five years ago. Clearly, environmentalists’ prediction that the world’s Merrick population would decline as a result of the spill has proven unfounded.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the argument offered in refutation of the environmentalists’ prediction?
A. The chemical spill five years ago occurred at a time when there were neither Merrick sea turtles nor Merrick sea turtle eggs on Baker’s Beach.
B. Female Merrick sea turtles begin returning to Baker’s Beach to lay their eggs when they are ten years old.
C. Under normal conditions, only a small proportion of hatchling female Merrick sea turtles survive in the ocean until adulthood and return to lay their eggs at Baker’s Beach.
D. Environmental pressures unrelated to the chemical spill have caused a significant decline in the population of one of the several species of sea birds that prey on Merrick sea turtle eggs.
E. After the chemical spill, an environmental group rejected a proposal to increase the Merrick sea turtle population by transferring eggs from Baker’s Beach to nearby beaches that had not been affected by the spill.
此题按照Weaken来处理 关键是在瞬间读懂需要Weaken什么 论坛内很多人自己都没读懂要weaken什么就出来解答
题干要求 undermines the argument offered in refutation of the environmentalists’ prediction 由于原文的后半段说专家的观点是站不住脚的（unfounded)，也就是说后半段是refutation 那么题目就要WEAKEN后半段 说明专家的观点是可行的
专家认为化学泄漏导致了海龟population的减少（注意不是eggs的减少）所以正确的答案应当增大population减少的可能性(又变成support了）
A说发生泄漏那年既没有M龟也没有龟蛋 这不能说明population可能会减少 要能的话也是说明population会增加（因为蛋的孵化没受到影响）
C有迷惑性 它是说在正常情况下会怎么怎么样跟现在的非正常情况扯不上关系 就算你觉得能扯上关系它也只说明海龟的数量一直很少 而不能体现出专家认为的5年内逐渐减少（各位没仔细看OG 其中有很多这样的干扰项）
D说明其他因素会导致猎食者数量减少 反而有可能会增加M龟的population 与专家观点相反
E选项沾边了 但它只能说明M龟的减少罪魁祸首是那些无聊的 environmental group 而专家的观点是M龟减少由于泄漏导致 E不能很好的支持专家
B项说M龟10岁时下蛋 为何正确呢？美国人的思维是这样的：5年前不是有个泄漏事故么 当年的蛋大部分都玩完了 导致当年M龟的population急剧下降 如果刚孵出来的小龟十年后才能产蛋 那么在近五年内都不可能会由population的增长（因为不能下蛋）因此M龟的population可能会下滑 支持了专家的观点
我们的思维是：它何时下蛋跟这次事故扯不上关系 一定得是跟泄漏事故沾边的才正确 这个想法太偏执了
GMAT逻辑难就在这里 阅读精度要高 脑子要保持清醒 还得迎合美国人的逻辑思维
还有一个问题 为什么是10岁而不是7岁8岁呢 这就是GMAT逻辑的精髓所在 美国人想问题不需要充分性 他们只要想到“有这个可能性”就行了 在此题中 7岁、8岁也是可行的 因为本题的时间跨度在5年内 所以只要是5岁以上都行（5岁以下回来下蛋说明近5年内m龟的population会增加 跟专家的观点相反）
另外我还有两篇 support和explaination的评述 各位可以点击看看
support http://forum.chasedream.com/dispbbs.asp?boardID=24&ID=373158&page=1
explaination http://forum.chasedream.com/dispbbs.asp?boardID=24&ID=373116&page=1
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2009-2-19 14:40:00
楼主
