是的，仔细阅读是很重要的说，偶发现自己原先的理解正好反了，文中说“But farming will not remain viable if the farms are left unmodernized”可偶开始把not漏看了
对E选项偶现在的理解是：既然原文说farming will not remain viable if the farms are left unmodernized，即 如果农场不现代化,那么耕作将会是不可行的，那么农民可能就会把农场卖了，这样看来要assist the farmers to modernize their farms，那么农民的土地就有能力继续耕作，因此农民就不会卖掉土地了。所以E错在the second presents a situation that the argument must be maintained，而非changed!
我有点糊涂了，On the other hand, these farmers will never actually sell any of the land, provided that farming it remains viable. 这句到底是支持哪一方的？如果是与 if the farmers did sell their land, they would sell it to the highest bidder, and developers would outbid any other bidders.这句并列的原因，那么怎么会是a basis for the argument’s advocacy of a particular strategy？
these farmers will never actually sell any of the land, provided that farming it remains viable与if the farmers did sell their land, they would sell it to the highest bidder, and developers would outbid any other bidders不是两个相互独立的并列的原因，其实是作者反对原来的方案并且提出新的建议的依据。
我有点糊涂了，On the other hand, these farmers will never actually sell any of the land, provided that farming it remains viable. 这句到底是支持哪一方的？如果是与 if the farmers did sell their land, they would sell it to the highest bidder, and developers would outbid any other bidders.这句并列的原因，那么怎么会是a basis for the argument’s advocacy of a particular strategy？
望nn指点
这道题做了好几遍，总算明白了。
这里E选项中前半句说得是strategies，注意这里用了复数。也就是说文中提出不只一个策略。所以后半句说得辩护者的particular策略是指文章最后一句作者提出的建议，即a more sensible preservation strategy would be to assist the farmers to modernize their farms to the extent needed to maintain viability，而不是前面的那个plan。
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2004-10-6 11:25:00
