GWD-TN-22-Q3 (GWD32-Q1)

yoshimihoku

The cause of the wreck of the ship Edmund Fitzgeraid in a severe storm on lake Superior is still unknown , when the sunken wreckage of the vessel was found, searchers discovered the hull in two pieces lying close together, The storm’s violent waves would have caused separate pieces floating even briefly on the surface to drift apart. Therefore, the breakup of the null can be ruled out as the cause of the sinking.


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

A.Ships as large as the Edmund Fitzgerald rarely sink except in the most violent weather.
B.Under water currents at the time of the storm did not move the separated pieces of the hull together again.
C.Pieces of the hull would have sunk more quickly than the intact hull would have
D.The waves of the storm were not violent enough to have caused the breakup
E.If the ship broke up before sinking , the pieces of the hull would not have remained on the surface for very long

我在BD间纠结，答案是B
研究答案后我觉得，B是可以的；但是我说不出为什么D不对。

我对原文的理解是：人们发现毁了的hull的2块拼起来了；大浪会让这2块飘分开；所以hull毁了肯定不是因为沉船

我的Assumption：沉了就会受到大浪的作用

A.Ships as large as the Edmund Fitzgerald rarely sink except in the most violent weather.
ef这样的大船很少在暴风以外的天气沉，只能推出所以ef不是因为暴风雨沉船的
原文结论：ef的损坏不是因为沉船
无关

B.Under water currents at the time of the storm did not move the separated pieces of the hull together again.
暴风时候下面的水流不会让hull碎片留到一起=重述原文
所以B好像很正确

C.Pieces of the hull would have sunk more quickly than the intact hull would have
无关

D.The waves of the storm were not violent enough to have caused the breakup
好像是直接support，不像假设
取非：暴风的浪会大到让传破损，破损不是因为沉船——不通啊，所以我觉得D好像也行

E.If the ship broke up before sinking , the pieces of the hull would not have remained on the surface for very long
无关




请大侠们帮助~~~！

林中雪

感觉不是很理解题意呢

liberzephyr

浪很大会把它们分开，断了两块在一起， hull断了不是沉船原因。
文章用户两块在一起反驳沉船hull是沉船原因

有一题类似的说山洞里出土文物就证明古代人。。。。。。
假设就是这个东西不是现代人后来发进去

d说风不够大 不能导致沉船这跟文章推理过程不相干
文章只讨论Hull断了是不是原因 没有讨论除此之外是什么其他原因
d无关选项

也可以从另一个角度说d不对
文章说在一次大风暴中沉船了，说风不够大，否定了原文不能成为假设
这个解释好像更好