ChaseDream
搜索
返回列表 发新帖
00:00:00

Ecologist: The Scottish Highlands were once the site of extensive forests, but these forests have mostly disappeared and been replaced by peat bogs. The common view is that the Highlands' deforestation was caused by human activity, especially agriculture. However, agriculture began in the Highlands less than 2,000 years ago. Peat bogs, which consist of compressed decayed vegetable matter, build up by only about one foot per 1,000 years and, throughout the Highlands, remains of trees in peat bogs are almost all at depths great than four feet. Since climate changes that occurred between 7,000 and 4,000 years ago favored the development of peat bogs rather than the survival of forests, the deforestation was more likely the result of natural processes than of human activity.

In the ecologist's argument the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?

正确答案: B

更多相关帖子

524

帖子

15

好友

4712

积分

ChaseDream

注册时间
2003-03-17
精华
8
解析
查看: 1764|回复: 1
打印 上一主题 下一主题

问一句逻辑选项的意思~!谢谢!!!!

[复制链接]
跳转到指定楼层
楼主
发表于 2010-7-30 00:27:48 | 只看该作者 回帖奖励 |倒序浏览 |阅读模式
Ecologist:The Scottish Highlands were once the site of extensive forests, but these forests have mostly disappeared and been replaced by peat bogs.The common view is that the Highlands’ deforestation was caused by human activity, especially agriculture. However, agriculture began in the Highlands less than 2,000 years ago.Peat bogs, which consist of compressed decayed vegetable matter, build up by only about one foot per 1,000 years and, throughout the Highlands, remains of trees in peat bogs are almost all at depths great than four feet.Since climate changes that occurred between 7,000 and 4,000 years ago favored the development of peat bogs rather than the survival of forests, the deforestation was more likely the result of natural processes than of human activity.


In the ecologist’s argument the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?


  1. The first is evidence that has been used in support of a position that the ecologist rejects; the second is a finding that the ecologist uses to counter that evidence.
  2. The first is evidence that, in light of the evidence provided in the second, serves as grounds for the ecologist’s rejection of a certain position.
  3. The first is a position that the ecologist rejects; the second is evidence that has been used in support of that position.
  4. The first is a position that the ecologist rejects; the second provides evidence in support of that rejection.
The first is a position for which the ecologist argues; the second provides evidence to support that position
The first is evidence that, in light of the evidence provided in the second, serves as grounds for the ecologist’s rejection of a certain position.
不知道这里in light of 如何解释呀
如果是"根据"的话第一句话怎么根据第二句呀.....
收藏收藏 收藏收藏
沙发
 楼主| 发表于 2010-7-30 02:58:46 | 只看该作者
5555555555~!木有人告诉我
您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 立即注册

Mark一下! 看一下! 顶楼主! 感谢分享! 快速回复:

手机版|ChaseDream|GMT+8, 2025-2-17 14:40
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号

ChaseDream 论坛

© 2003-2023 ChaseDream.com. All Rights Reserved.

返回顶部