新Prep cr1 的98题，有点反应不过来...

洛洛洛洛

Early in the twentieth century, Lake Konfa
became very polluted.Recently fish populations have recovered as release of industrial pollutants has declined and the lake’s waters have become cleaner.Fears are now being voiced that the planned construction of an oil pipeline across the lake’s bottom might revive pollution and cause the fish population to decline again.However, a technology for preventing leaks is being installed.Therefore, provided this technology is effective, those fears are groundless.
The argument depends on assuming which of the following?

A. Apart from development related to the pipeline, there will be no new industrial development around the lake that will create renewed pollution in its waters.

B. There is no reason to believe that the leak-preventing technology would be ineffective when installed in the pipeline in Lake Konfa
.
C. The bottom of the lake does not contain toxic remnants of earlier pollution that will be stirred into the water by pipeline construction.

D. Damage to the lake’s fish populations would be the only harm that a leak of oil from the pipeline would cause.

E. The species of fish that are present in Lake Konfa
now are the same as those that were in the lake before it was affected by pollution.



答案我是知道选C啦，但是在自己总结的时候，突然下对D选项不解了...
谁帮我解释下这个D为什么错呀？

mousealpha

我觉得。。d说的是漏油问题，原文主要说的是原来的污染沉淀被搅起来的问题，没有对应上。。

洛洛洛洛

我觉得。。d说的是漏油问题，原文主要说的是原来的污染沉淀被搅起来的问题，没有对应上。。

-- by 会员 mousealpha (2010/5/23 22:26:14)

原来的污染被搅起来是C选项的吧...

mousealpha

原文里面说了：across the lake’s bottom might revive pollution

c里面比较明确的说了个情况。。

kennu_r

个人感觉。。。一个是 construction of an oil pipeline
一个是 oil pipeline。这里的概念有区分吧？

mousealpha

恩。。同意ls的。。我也觉得这是两个概念。。

d的局限到pipeline了。。

原文讨论的应该是construction of an oil pipeline。。

洛洛洛洛

对哦对哦，谢谢楼上的哈，我题目看得还不够仔细啊

liuli_beryl

为什么选C呢？请牛牛解释一下，谢谢！

tengjunshan

前提：防止石油泄漏的技术已经被应用了。
结论：这项技术很有效，人们没必要担心。

B排除了涉及PIPELINE的其他污染可能.原文的PREMISE已经说明了technology is effective,所以这里补的是条件,排除他因，所以正确。

C项错的原因是，此项的意思否认了原文给出的前提。GMAT逻辑中，原文给出的前提---即正确的。不可推翻。

D项的意思是：由漏油引起的唯一harm是damage了fish的population.
取反：漏油还带来其它的harm（比如：杀死小虾。）---->与原文的给出的前提和结论无关,无法weaken 结论。所以也错。

angelazhao1010

A呢？