GWD一题

renxian

In the past, most children who went sledding in the winter snow in Verland used wooden sleds with runners and steering bars.  Ten years ago, smooth plastic sleds became popular; they go faster than wooden sleds but are harder to steer and slow.  The concern that plastic sleds are more dangerous is clearly borne out by the fact that the number of children injured while sledding was much higher last winter than it was ten years ago.

Which of the following, if true in Verland, most seriously undermines the force of the evidence cited?

B c ，答案选C，我认为C不对，因为即使用的广泛了，但是它没有直接提出用plastic sleds的总量增加，怎么可以weaken呢？？？原因太牵强了吧

A.      A few children still use traditional wooden sleds.

B.       Very few children wear any kind of protective gear, such as helmets, while sledding.

C.      Plastic sleds can be used in a much wider variety of snow conditions than wooden sleds can.

D.      Most sledding injuries occur when a sled collides with a tree, a rock, or, another sled.

E.       Because the traditional wooden sled can carry more than one rider, an accident involving a wooden sled can result in several children being injured.

LittleMike

题目：有俩东西，一个是木头的（十年前），一个是塑料的（现代的），证据说：去年冬天受伤的孩子比十年前数量多多了，结论是：塑料的太危险了

选项问五个之中哪个能够削弱，也就是说，加上哪个选项，就能证明其实塑料的不比木头的危险，那么一定要涉及塑料的和木头之间的比较，要给个其他方面的原因来说明不是因为我塑料的更危险才让去年受伤的孩子多，而是一个别的原因

那么看B，说孩子们不穿保护装备，那跟塑料木头没关系啊，穿不穿保护装备它也没涉及塑料跟木头的比较，我猜你的想法是十年前穿，现在不穿了？如果是这么想的话我得说B这个选项它没说十年前的孩子穿装备，如果两个时代的人都不穿，那不就没有削弱么，简而言之B没有涉及比较

C说塑料的可以用的情况多了，间接意味着用塑料的孩子的人\次总量多了（基数大了），说木头和塑料谁危险就是比个受伤的比率（受伤人数/滑雪总人数），基数大了没准受伤比率其实很小所以受伤人数其实还是上升的，这样就说明了塑料其实是不比木头危险，削弱，选C

[此贴子已经被作者于2009/10/4 18:08:26编辑过]

jinqijia

哈哈。lz只能适应伟大的GMAC的牵强辩证法。使用广泛，就是告诉你使用频率高。