[讨论]GWD-23-32 A为什么不对？

goafterdream

Excavations of the Roman city of Sepphoris have uncovered numerous detailed mosaics depicting several readily identifiable animal species:  a hare, a partridge, and various Mediterranean fish.  Oddly, most of the species represented did not live in the Sepphoris region when these mosaics were created.  Since identical motifs appear in mosaics found in other Roman cities, however, the mosaics of Sepphoris were very likely created by traveling artisans from some other part of the Roman Empire.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

1. The Sepphoris mosaics are not composed exclusively of types of stones found naturally in the Sepphoris area.

2. There is no single region to which all the species depicted in the Sepphoris mosaics are native.

3. No motifs appear in the Sepphoris mosaics that do not also appear in the mosaics of some other Roman city.

4. All of the animal figures in the Sepphoris mosaics are readily identifiable as representations of known species.

5. There was not a common repertory of mosaic designs with which artisans who lived in various parts of the Roman Empire were familiar.

答案是E，我能理解。

但是我觉得A也正确啊，A说，这个东西并不都是由本地的石头组成的，那就一定要有外来物啊。

谁能给解释一下A为什么不对么 ？

[此贴子已经被作者于2009/10/28 10:59:25编辑过]

monkeymaru

我觉得A最大的问题是没有和结论联系起来：
结论说的是：M这个东西很有可能是由其他地方的traveling artisans创造的。
A即使不是由本地的石头组成，但是也不能证明是其他地方的traveling artisans做的。但是E如果说这个design不是本地的artisans熟悉的，就可以很好的推测出结论。