偶遇新题，供大家练习用 ：)

cranberry

i agree with A.

coz A tells us that two different areas are under different weather condition and thus the comparation is not persuasive or convincing.

B is wrong in that it only says that it suffers greater damage than before but it does not say why it suffers greater damage with the aid of flood-control project .  and for this reason , it dose not weaken the argument.

[此贴子已经被作者于2004-4-30 0:40:04编辑过]

panyuesheng

B?

JerryGuan

The cost of flood damage since 1980 has been greater in areas that have adopted flood-control measures than in those that have not. Thus, flood-control projects are expensive engineering mistakes and a substantial waste of resources.

Which of the following, if true, would be most damaging to the argument above?
(A)Those areas that had not suffered flood damage before 1980 are the only ones that have not adopted flood-control measures

自从1980以来，那些采取了防洪措施的地区比那些没有采取措施的地区遭受了更大的洪水损害；因此，防洪工程是一项昂贵的工程失误，并且浪费了大量的资源。

问：最能损害文章推理的

A， 1980年前那些没有遭受洪水损害地区只是那些没有采取措施的地方。

--------------------------
大家都说这个是说明初始条件的不同，可是，我怎么也想不通。

我的推理：由A可知：
采取了措施的地方，一定是1980年前有遭受洪水损害地区。
而没有采取措施的地方，可能是1980年前有洪水，也可是1980年前没有洪水。
这是如何推导出没有工程也可能会比修工程受更小损失的？

有了洪水灾害，人们修了工程，结果修了工程的地方比没修的地方损害更大。虽然没修工程的地方1980年前没有洪水，那1980后，也可能会有洪水发生。

举例，黄河1980年有洪水修了工程，长江1980年前没洪水也没修工程，松花江1980年前有洪水，没有修工程；结果黄河受了更大的灾；科学家说这是工程失误。工程师反对说：1980年前没有受灾只是没有修工程的地方，如长江。 言下之意就是没有修工程又没有洪水，在1980年后一定出现 更小规模的洪水。这是怎么推的嘛。

即便把A改为：只有那些没有采取措施的地方在1980年前没有遭受洪水损害地区。
也没有告诉你未修工程1980年后的洪水情况呀。

1980年前有没有洪水，受多大damage，与1980年后有没有受洪水，无关嘛。为何可以比较？

请帮我想通这个问题吧。

freedownload

我也想不通A，A说before 1980，........, 这和since 1980什么关系也没有呀。

cranberry

没有洪水和没有设施是一一对应的，那么，即使洪水造成的损失被防洪设施减小了还是要比根本没有洪水的地方的损失大，但我们不能因此认为设施没用吧。

mariezhu

我觉得这题大家想得有点过于复杂化了。题中说：1980年以来实施洪水控制措施地区的洪患比没有实施洪水控制措施的地区还严重，由此认为洪水控制措施代价高昂、浪费资源。

问如何削弱？A 指出未遭洪患的地区＝没有实施洪水控制措施的地区

把它带入题中，大家可以看出“1980年以来实施洪水控制措施地区的洪患比未遭洪患的地区还严重”。很明显，未遭洪患的地区洪患为零，而遭受洪患的地区无论实施了何种有效洪水控制措施都不可能使洪患小于零。所以不能就此认为洪水控制措施代价高昂、浪费资源。

ios

The cost of flood damage since 1980 has been greater in areas that have adopted flood-control measures than in those that have not. Thus, flood-control projects are expensive engineering mistakes and a substantial waste of resources.

注意cost

(A)Those areas that had not suffered flood damage before 1980 are the only ones that have not adopted flood-control measures

说明cost大的原因：没遭水灾的地方压根没有任何投入。

考试碰到这种题，肯定死菜。

worri

i agree with the analysis by jetrong. I think the key is E

mindfree

Wonder why I did not see this post before. I choose A. I am not going to explain why A is correct. I would tell you why B and E are not

B. Since 1980, those areas that have taken flood-control measures have suffered greater flood damage than they did in the previous decade.

ETS is getting much smarter with their wrong choices. The problem with B is that it says the "flood damage" has been greater than before. It could not dispute the argument. On the contrary, there being more damage is actually supporting the argument because it can be used as evidence that the flood control is a waste of resources as the flood damage is worse.

I think that those who picked B did not read the choice very carefully. They might have misunderstood it. If I changed it a bit "Since 1980, those areas that have taken flood-control measures have suffered greater flood than they did in the previous decade". I just removed the word "damage". Now B is correct because the worsening damage can be explained by the worse flooding.

E is not correct. The reason is very simple and those who picked E should rethink their approach towards CR. In the question the argument is comparing two types of regions: one with flood control and one without. However, E does not dinstinguish between the two types of regions at all. It simply says there is more rainfall. We can safely presume that both types of regions received more rainfall. Identical conditions can not be used to explain differences here. Those who picked E might have thought that only the region who had the flood control had more rainfall.

jetrong

以下是引用mindfree在2004-5-1 4:47:00的发言：

Wonder why I did not see this post before. I choose A. I am not going to explain why A is correct. I would tell you why B and E are not

B. Since 1980, those areas that have taken flood-control measures have suffered greater flood damage than they did in the previous decade.

ETS is getting much smarter with their wrong choices. The problem with B is that it says the "flood damage" has been greater than before. It could not dispute the argument. On the contrary, there being more damage is actually supporting the argument because it can be used as evidence that the flood control is a waste of resources as the flood damage is worse.

I think that those who picked B did not read the choice very carefully. They might have misunderstood it. If I changed it a bit "Since 1980, those areas that have taken flood-control measures have suffered greater flood than they did in the previous decade". I just removed the word "damage". Now B is correct because the worsening damage can be explained by the worse flooding.

E is not correct. The reason is very simple and those who picked E should rethink their approach towards CR. In the question the argument is comparing two types of regions: one with flood control and one without. However, E does not dinstinguish between the two types of regions at all. It simply says there is more rainfall. We can safely presume that both types of regions received more rainfall. Identical conditions can not be used to explain differences here. Those who picked E might have thought that only the region who had the flood control had more rainfall.

再三思之，觉得总教头言之有理！

考试如果有这题，真是惨了。。。。。