求教各位牛牛 GWD 第六套 逻辑

陆仁嘉

In 1992 outlaw fishing boats began illegally harvesting lobsters from the territorial waters of the country of Belukia.  Soon after, the annual tonnage of lobster legally harvested in Belukian waters began declining; in 1996, despite there being no reduction in the level of legal lobster fishing activity, the local catch was 9,000 tons below pre-1992 levels.  It is therefore highly likely that the outlaw fishing boats harvested about 9,000 tons of lobster illegally that year.

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

A The illegal lobster harvesting was not so extensive that the population of catchable lobsters in Belukia's territorial waters had sharply declined by 1996.  
B The average annual lobster catch, in tons, of an outlaw fishing boat has increased steadily since 1992.  
C Outlaw fishing boats do not, as a group, harvest more lobsters than do licensed lobster-fishing boats.  
D The annual legal lobster harvest in Belukia in 1996 was not significantly less than 9,000 tons.  
E A significant proportion of Belukia's operators of licensed lobster-fishing boats went out of business between 1992 and 1996.

请教达人  我选的是A是正确答案  但是 a项是个驳斥选项  怎么就成了假设了呢？假设应该是支持的呀？
通过有关无关 我可以判断BCDE都是无关 或者是范围不对  而A项是说了一个龙虾减少的其他原因 这是驳斥原文的，为什么确实正确答案   请牛牛们指教

陆仁嘉

自己顶起

hikarugaara

我是这样理解的
A是说可以捉的龙虾量没下降

题目说正规的捕龙虾量比92下降了9000吨，推出非法捕捉的大概有9000吨，只有总量不变才能有这样的推测，所以选A。。。

muluan

BCDE既然是无关选项了   你还管A是不是支持呢   都排除掉4个了  那剩下的就是答案了

jiangliu

谁能帮忙翻译一下A? 为什莫illegal lobster harvesting was not so extensive反而造成了catchable lobsters in Belukia's territorial waters had sharply declined by 1996?

hikarugaara

A中的not是否定 后面so that 句

cosuede

假设的前提是总量不变

jiangliu

谢谢,但是还是有2点不明白:
1, not so extensive 跟后边的that所表达的数量降低到底有啥关系？
2， 如何在A中看出来得“总量不变“这个事实？

hikarugaara

1 not是否定整个句子，就是对so extensive that population decline取反，而不是对so extensive取反
2 打个比方，原来诺基亚每年可以卖100万台手机，现在只有90万了，所以诺基亚说山寨机至少每年卖10万。诺基亚前提肯定是没有山寨机的情况下他还能卖的和原来一样多，即这个手机市场至少可以卖100万。如果市场最多只有90万，那就不能说山寨机卖了10万

陆仁嘉

没想到这句话是这么读的，我不知道not是否定全句的，怎么看也没看出来