（A） states that a bird similar to the Tennessee warbler has experienced a similar decline in numbers. The similarity between the Baltimore oriole and the Tennessee warbler is that both the birds are dependent on the coffee plantations. The difference is that the Baltimore oriole is NOT dependent on the spruce budworms.
Now, if the elimination of the tree cover in the coffee plantation were to be the cause, it would affect both the Tennessee warbler and the Baltimore oriole. Similarly, if the decline in the population of the spruce budworm were to be the cause, then it would affect only the Tennessee warbler, not the Baltimore oriole because the oriole is not dependent on the budworm.
However, the statement shows that even the oriole has experienced a decline in numbers. This indicates that the decline in the population of the budworm is not likely to be the cause for the decline in the numbers of either bird. Thus, Scott's argument is weakened.
其实这个问题也可以这样来看：
Scott说 warbler数量减少是因为食物（budworm）减少了, budworm减少是因，warbler减少是果。
A项说的是和warbler相似的一种鸟也减少了不是由于budworm减少，暗含有其它原因导致和warbler相似的这种鸟数量减少。
以上两个论述可以简化为： Scott认为 因——>果，而A项认为 第三因（两者无关暗含有第三因素导致果）——>相似果 所以可以削弱
另外需要特别注意的是：you don't have to kill the argument; you just have to provide counterevidence. that is what "call into question" means.
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2011-5-26 21:35:40
