这个题的题干 看不懂呀 郁闷NN们帮忙

呼啸700

32. GWD30-Q32:

A major chemical spill occurred five years ago at Baker’s Beach, the world’s sole nesting ground for Merrick sea turtles, and prevented nearly all the eggs laid that year from hatching.Yet the number of adult female Merricks returning to lay their eggs at Baker’s Beach has actually increased somewhat since five years ago.Clearly, environmentalists’ prediction that the world’s Merrick population would decline as a result of the spill has proven unfounded.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the argument offered in refutation of the environmentalists’ prediction?

The chemical spill five years ago occurred at a time when there were neither Merrick sea turtles nor Merrick sea turtle eggs on Baker’s Beach.

Female Merrick sea turtles begin returning to Baker’s Beach to lay their eggs when they are ten years old.答案

Under normal conditions, only a small proportion of hatchling female Merrick sea turtles survive in the ocean until adulthood and return to lay their eggs at Baker’s Beach.

Environmental pressures unrelated to the chemical spill have caused a significant decline in the population of one of the several species of sea birds that prey on Merrick sea turtle eggs.

After the chemical spill, an environmental group rejected a proposal to increase the Merrick sea turtle population by transferring eggs from Baker’s Beach to nearby beaches that had not been affected by the spill.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the argument offered in refutation of the environmentalists’ prediction   这个题到底是问支持环境学家的预测 还是 反对 环境学家的预测呀 看不大懂  NN们帮我解释一下 谢谢啦

cycyang

A major chemical spill occurred five years ago at Baker’s Beach, the world’s sole nesting ground for Merrick sea turtles, and prevented nearly all the eggs laid that year from hatching.Yet the number of adult female Merricks returning to lay their eggs at Baker’s Beach has actually increased somewhat since five years ago.Clearly, environmentalists’ prediction that the world’s Merrick population would decline as a result of the spill has proven unfounded.
大意：五年前一次化学物质的泄漏让本来在海滩产卵的海龟不能产卵，然而实际上五年来回到海滩产卵的雌海龟数量确在增加。环境学家据此推论：关于由于化学物质泄漏而导致海龟数量减少的论断是不成立的。

Environmental pressures unrelated to the chemical spill have caused a significant decline in the population of one of the several species of sea birds that prey on Merrick sea turtle eggs.
一种以海龟为食的鸟类的数量下降，原因是和化学物质泄漏无关的环境压力。如果成立，则说明海龟数量增加，而这种增加又和化学物质泄漏无关，从而推翻了结论。

呼啸700

那我问一下 NN  这个题的 用意到底是削弱 污染对海龟 有影响 还是  加强 污染对海龟 有影响  我不明白 。这个题的正确答案是 那个产卵的海龟 要10岁大 才会 回来产卵

yychole

Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the argument offered in refutation of the environmentalists’ prediction

“ refutation of the environmentalists' prediction": 是指海龟数量的不会因化学事故减少。
又来一个”undermines"，所以最终要从ABCD里选出一个是支持这个结论的，既化学物质还是可能导致海归数量减少的，就是支持科学家的预测。

可是答案没看懂……

cycyang

Female Merrick sea turtles begin returning to Baker’s Beach to lay their eggs when they are ten years old.
若此项为真，则说明海龟数量的明显减少将会在发生泄漏事件后至少10年才会显现。现在返回的雌性海龟的返回和“是否成功孵化”没有关联。

这样，

“environmentalists’ prediction that the world’s Merrick population would decline as a result of the spill ”还是可以成立的，只是要再经过几年才会显现。

直接反驳。

yychole

可是题目中已经表示了”and prevented nearly all the eggs laid that year from hatching“，说明海龟蛋就是没有孵化出来呀，那最终海龟数量还是会减少……这和10年后海龟再次回来产卵没有关系吧。

cycyang

Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the argument offered in refutation of the environmentalists’ prediction?
"undermines"是否定，
“the argument offered in refutation of the environmentalists’ prediction” 指反驳环境学家的预测，即"unfounded".

所以这个题干的目标是否定“环境学家的推测不可靠”

cycyang

可是题目中已经表示了”and prevented nearly all the eggs laid that year from hatching“，说明海龟蛋就是没有孵化出来呀，那最终海龟数量还是会减少……这和10年后海龟再次回来产卵没有关系吧。

有一定道理，但是这只是说明那一年孵化的小海龟几乎为零，不影响其后每年都有海龟回来孵蛋。因为总数增加了，所以不排除成年海龟（到孵化年龄）的数量在这些年的总趋势是比以前多的。