关于GWD30-32题的标准解答 看完就明白了

stevenisgenius

TheAssembly 发表于 2009-10-8 15:35
其实我认为我的解释也有问题因为要基于一些有问题的假设，比如“海龟一生只产一次蛋”,“当年的蛋当年孵化 ...

很同意你的观点，因为如果没有一生只产一次蛋的限制，还有海龟年龄的限制，按lz的思路来想简直是荒谬。 lz这个思路其实主观的去迎合了答案，这样十分不利于解题。

simonhg11

stevenisgenius 发表于 2013-6-21 15:40
这个才是最适合考试的思路！

绝对同意你的观点。考试谁会慢条斯理地去自己推啊

云游

Conclusion: Prediction of spill of influencing sea turtles is wrong
Premise: Spill happened 5 years ago at Baker’s beach while numbers of female turtle return to baker’s beach to hatch increase.
Gap: Increase in return 5 years ago can’t be caused by the spill at the same year. The return must be caused by some events occurred earlier than 5 years ago.
Prephrase: Close gap—other factor cause the increase in return.

All A.C.D are saying something irrelevant.
E might be attractive but it has the same logic fallacy as what is stated in the stimulus- environmental group’s action that year can’t have an instantaneous effect on the turtles return behavior that year!

This question won’t be so complicated  if your English is proficient enough.  

imJoanie

sjtupeeler 发表于 2009-6-27 10:10
以下是引用NOmoreTears在2009-2-19 14:40:00的发言：我在逻辑区看到很多人讨论这个题 但是答案都不能让人信 ...

第一句什么支持还是削弱的解释没看懂，但后面的解释我同意你的，跟楼主有些小出入。 就是spill的影响要十年后才能看出来，现在的龟增长不能说明专家的预测就错了，预测是否unfounded要第十年之后再看，所以削弱了原文最后的一句argument。anyway，理解题干是这道题的前提和关键，谢谢楼主，不然我真没注意到题干这么绕~

boboduaner

(⊙o⊙)…我想说楼主的长篇分析实在是太麻烦，让我真心没有耐心看下去。。。楼主把简单问题复杂化了。

其实这道题目问的很简单，就是在问“以下哪个论据可以削弱作者的观点”。
原文 作者的观点是“Clearly, environmentalists’ prediction that the world’s Merrick population would decline as a result of the spill has proven unfounded.” 我们抽取句子主干，即 environmentalists’ prediction has proven unfounded。
题目问的是“Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the argument offered in refutation of the environmentalists’ prediction?” 其实这里的 in refutation of the environmentalists’ prediction是作者观点environmentalists’ prediction has proven unfounded的另一种说法。

zenglikevin

sjtupeeler 发表于 2009-6-27 10:10
以下是引用NOmoreTears在2009-2-19 14:40:00的发言：我在逻辑区看到很多人讨论这个题 但是答案都不能让人信 ...

补充得好！

ciciwenwen

引用外文网的一个解释：
“For a weakening question, we want to cast doubt on the author's conclusion.

The author concludes that the environmentalists are wrong, i.e. that the number of turtles will decline as a result of the spill is incorrect. The author bases this on the number of females who returned this year, 5 years after the spill, is higher than previous years.

One great way to weaken is to show that the author's evidence is irrelevant to the author's conclusion. Choice (B) does exactly that.

If it takes 10 years for turtles to mature to egg laying status, then looking at numbers only 5 years after the spill is irrelevant. Since (B) renders the author's evidence irrelevant, it weakens the author's conclusion.”----http://www.beatthegmat.com/turtle-t28611.html

解释的很棒了！

bejamin1111

ciciwenwen 发表于 2014-4-5 14:38
引用外文网的一个解释：
“For a weakening question, we want to cast doubt on the author's conclusion. ...

cool!~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

lvsexiaocaomei

多谢楼主！非常有帮助

monocosn

原谅我是在没内心看完LZ的解答，相信一定十分精彩并且无懈可击。
但是我感觉像LZ这么严密的推理过程在做题的时候是不efficient的，当然这对题后帮助理解很有用。
我觉得这题读懂问题就十分简单了。正确的做题思路：
这5年来新生的乌龟少了，E据此预测总量少了。但是最近5年回来产卵的母乌龟多了——这是refutation。
就是说证据和结论相反了。所以我们要寻找的答案就是要证明这个反证据和结论没关系！
所以，只有B了。B就是说，这些年来回来的母乌龟根本就不是这五年新生的。所以这个证据和结论没关系。加强！