Excavation of the ancient city of Kourion on the island of Cyprus revealed a pattern of debris and collapsed buildings typical of towns devastated by earthquakes. Archaeologists have hypothesized that the destruction was due to a major earthquake known to have occurred near the island in AD 365.
Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the archaeologists' hypothesis?
65. Excavation of the ancient city of Kourion on the island of Cyprus revealed a pattern of debris and collapsed buildings typical of towns devastated by earthquakes. Archaeologists have hypothesized that the destruction was due to a major earthquake known to have occurred near the island in A.D. 365. Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the archaeologists' hypothesis? (A) Bronze ceremonial drinking vessels that are often found in graves dating from years preceding and following A.D. 365 were also found in several graves near Kourion. (B) No coins minted after A.D. 365 were found in Kourion, but coins minted before that year were found in abundance. (C) Most modern histories of Cyprus mention that an earthquake occurred near the island in A.D. 365. (D) Several small statues carved in styles current in Cyprus in the century between A.D. 300 and A.D. 400 were found in Kourion. (E) Stone inscriptions in a form of the Greek alphabet that was definitely used in Cyprus after A.D. 365 were found in Kourion.
答案是B,解释为 Which statement best supports the archaeologists' hypothesis? An earthquake struck near Cyprus in A.D. 365; this fact is not disputed. If this earthquake is the one responsible for the devastation of Kourion, then there should be evidence of active occupation before A.D. 365, but no evidence of activity after that date. The dates on the coins found on the site suggest that life in Kourion was flourishing before A.D. 365; the total lack of coins after the year of the earthquake supports the idea that the city had been destroyed. 但我觉得C也算一种加强啊,因为它证明了确实有地震发生,而原文中没有说当时真的发生了地震。而B说了地震前后的区别,但这种区别就没有可能是别的灾难造成的吗?还有D说削弱了结论,是因为statues发现于A.D.300-400间算是一种证明,而若在365-400就没法证明了吗? 我彻底晕了,望大家各抒己见~
原文中说了“due to a major earthquake known to have occurred near the island in A.D. 365.” 正如OG的解释this fact is not disputed 发生地震这是事实。你在做逻辑题的时候不要加进自己的想象,原题说是真的,那么就当作真的处理。C可排除。
原文中说了“due to a major earthquake known to have occurred near the island in A.D. 365.” 正如OG的解释this fact is not disputed 发生地震这是事实。你在做逻辑题的时候不要加进自己的想象,原题说是真的,那么就当作真的处理。C可排除。