CR中的“no+比较级+than”与“not+比较级+than”，

h110h110

GMAT逻辑中里常涉及“no+比较级+than”与“not+比较级+than”，我总结了一下，以下两道题目为例，与大家共享：

GWD 5-Q30:

Which of the following most logically completes the argument?

The irradiation of food kills bacteria and thus retards spoilage.  However, it also lowers the nutritional value of many foods.  For example, irradiation destroys a significant percentage of whatever vitamin B1 a food may contain.  Proponents of irradiation point out that irradiation is no worse in this respect than cooking.  However, this fact is either beside the point, since much irradiated food is eaten raw, or else misleading, since _______.

A.      many of the proponents of irradiation are food distributors who gain from food’s having a longer shelf life

B.       it is clear that killing bacteria that may be present on food is not the only effect that irradiation has

C.      cooking is usually the final step in preparing food for consumption, whereas irradiation serves to ensure a longer shelf life for perishable foods

D.      certain kinds of cooking are, in fact, even more destructive of vitamin B1 than carefully controlled irradiation is

E.       for food that is both irradiated and cooked, the reduction of vitamin B1 associated with either process individually is compounded

在这个有许多争议的题目中，Proponents of irradiation point out that irradiation is no worse in this respect than cooking.这句话的理解成为了关键。我们先不谈这句话的翻译，先来解释一下“no+比较级+than”的意义。“no+比较级+than”这类结构的实际意思是对待比较的两个对象进行否定，相当于该原级形容词或副词的反义词使用as…as结构的意思。如：
   

　　no better than = as bad as 与……一样不好
   

　　He is no cleverer than her. 他与她一样不聪明(即一样愚)。
   

　　He’s no richer than a beggar. 他同乞丐一样穷，即穷如乞丐。

而“Not+比较级+than”表示“不比…更”。如：
   

　　He is not taller than me. 他不如我高。
   

　　对比：He is no taller than me. 他同我一样不高。(即一样矮)

很显然，Proponents of irradiation point out that irradiation is no worse in this respect than cooking.这句话应该理解为：“irradiation的支持者在这方面（irradiation造成维生素B1损失）与cooking一样都不差”，即“irradiation与cooking一样好”，后面的however则是对该句话的否定（irradiation与cooking不是一样的好，irradiation更容易造成维生素B1损失），有两个反驳：反驳之1是认为much irradiated food is eaten raw（不cooking，所以营养价值是被irradiation破坏了）；反驳之2, 若irradiate food 不是eaten raw, 那必然是必须要被cooked --->cooked & irradiated这个过程比两个单独烹饪，对营养价值的破坏都要大，也就是说irradiation加剧了cooking时破坏B1的作用--->那么就不能说  irradiation is no worse in this respect than cooking
   ，所以选择E。

再来看一题：

GWD7-Q5:

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? C

A.      The number of school nurses employed by Renston’s elementary schools has not decreased over the past ten years.

B.       Children who are allergic to the chemicals are no more likely than other children to have allergies to other substances.

C.      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.

D.      The chemicals are not commonly used as cleaners or pesticides in houses and apartment buildings in Renston.

E.       Children attending elementary school do not make up a larger proportion of Renston’s population now than they did ten years ago.

对于B.   Children who are allergic to the chemicals are no more likely than other children to have allergies to other substances.这句话的理解，我们应该解释为“对化学物品过敏的孩子与其他孩子一样，都不可能对其他物质（化学物品之外的）过敏”。很显然，这与原文的讨论无关。

对于C.   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. 这句话的理解，我们应该解释为“现在过敏的孩子比以前更不可能被送到学校的医务室”，对其取非为：“现在过敏的孩子比以前更可能被送到学校的医务室”，也就是说不一定是过敏的孩子多造成的。所以削弱原文。选择C

[此贴子已经被作者于2009-4-17 15:26:09编辑过]