The way I looked at the problem is the following: 1) Read the question stem: Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the researchers' hypothesis? Okay, this is a strengthen-type question. 2) Read the stimulus and find the researcher's hypothesis : this (polo) vaccine was the source of the virus found in mesotheliomas decades later. In short, contamination of virus in polo vaccine --> virus found in mesotheliomas. 3) Study the answer choices to find the strengthener. Both (D) and (E) look interesting. However the phrase "a small percentage" in answer (D) bothers me. Even if (D) is right, it could only support "a small percentage" of the argument. 4) Let's see (E) -- In Finland, where the polio vaccine was never contaminated, samples from mesotheliomas do not contain SV40. Hmmm. Very sexy. One way to strengthen an argument is to show that when the cause does not occur, the effect does not occur. In our case, this would lead to the following equation: NO contamination of virus in polo vaccine --> NO virus found in mesotheliomas. That is exactly what is said in answer (E). Bingo. -- by 会员 sdcar2010 (2010/11/8 6:30:41)
楼上精彩~~~~ |