prep2-114

rainbowmanutd

Excavations of the Roman city ofSepphoris have uncovered numerous detailed mosaics depicting several readilyidentifiable animal species:  a hare, apartridge, and various Mediterranean fish. Oddly, most of the species represented did not live in the Sepphorisregion when these mosaics were created. Since identical motifs appear in mosaics found in other Roman cities,however, the mosaics of Sepphoris were very likely created by travelingartisans from some other part of the Roman Empire.
Which of the following is an assumptionon which the argument depends?
A. The Sepphoris mosaics are not composedexclusively of types of stones found naturally in the Sepphoris area.
B. There is no single region to which allthe species depicted in the Sepphoris mosaics are native.
C. No motifs appear in the Sepphorismosaics that do not also appear in the mosaics of some other Roman city.
D. All of the animal figures in theSepphoris mosaics are readily identifiable as representations of known species.
E. There was not a common repertory ofmosaic designs with which artisans who lived in various parts of the RomanEmpire were familiar.


选E, 怎么翻译阿？
A为什么不对呢， The Sepphoris mosaics are not composed exclusively of types of stones found naturally in the Sepphoris area.
取非，这些东西是由在S才能发现的石头组成的，不正好削弱是别的地方的艺术家创造的吗？

sdcar2010

Well, I don't think travelling artist would carry with them a cart load of stones . . . So if you negate A, it says nothing about who created these mosaics.

Premise1: Most of the species represented did not live in the Sepphoris region when these mosaics were created
premise2:  Identical motifs appear in mosaics found in other Roman cities

Conclusion: The mosaics of Sepphoris were very likely created by traveling artisans from some other part of the Roman Empire.

Necessary assumption, use negation.

If you negate E, you get: There was a common repertory of mosaic designs with which artisans who lived in various parts of the Roman Empire were familiar. If this is true, then those artisans do not need to travel from city to city in order to learn the common designs. Therefore, the argument falls apart. So E is necessary for the argument to hold.

低调进步

Well, I don't think travelling artist would carry with them a cart load of stones . . . So if you negate A, it says nothing about who created these mosaics.Premise1: Most of the species represented did not live in the Sepphoris region when these mosaics were createdpremise2:  Identical motifs appear in mosaics found in other Roman citiesConclusion: The mosaics of Sepphoris were very likely created by traveling artisans from some other part of the Roman Empire.Necessary assumption, use negation.If you negate E, you get: There was a common repertory of mosaic designs with which artisans who lived in various parts of the Roman Empire were familiar. If this is true, then those artisans do not need to travel from city to city in order to learn the common designs. Therefore, the argument falls apart. So E is necessary for the argument to hold.-- by 会员 sdcar2010 (2011/6/25 10:54:18)

hi sdcar  could u plx explain C?    thx!!

单调唱

Well, I don't think travelling artist would carry with them a cart load of stones . . . So if you negate A, it says nothing about who created these mosaics.

Premise1: Most of the species represented did not live in the Sepphoris region when these mosaics were created
premise2:  Identical motifs appear in mosaics found in other Roman cities

Conclusion: The mosaics of Sepphoris were very likely created by traveling artisans from some other part of the Roman Empire.

Necessary assumption, use negation.

If you negate E, you get: There was a common repertory of mosaic designs with which artisans who lived in various parts of the Roman Empire were familiar. If this is true, then those artisans do not need to travel from city to city in order to learn the common designs. Therefore, the argument falls apart. So E is necessary for the argument to hold.

-- by 会员 sdcar2010 (2011/6/25 10:54:18)

common design??这个并没有提到呀。为什么不用学common design就不用travel to M

haibaraaifly

还是不太明白呢...
再请教一下...
premise1不是说画在这些石头上这些物种不存在于S地区吗，那么即便有一个common design，S地区当地的画家不是还是得到外地有这些物种的地方去照着画吗？

haibaraaifly

Well, I don't think travelling artist would carry with them a cart load of stones . . . So if you negate A, it says nothing about who created these mosaics.

Premise1: Most of the species represented did not live in the Sepphoris region when these mosaics were created
premise2:  Identical motifs appear in mosaics found in other Roman cities

Conclusion: The mosaics of Sepphoris were very likely created by traveling artisans from some other part of the Roman Empire.

Necessary assumption, use negation.

If you negate E, you get: There was a common repertory of mosaic designs with which artisans who lived in various parts of the Roman Empire were familiar. If this is true, then those artisans do not need to travel from city to city in order to learn the common designs. Therefore, the argument falls apart. So E is necessary for the argument to hold.

-- by 会员 sdcar2010 (2011/6/25 10:54:18)

请问一下是说如果有一个相同的大家都很熟悉的repertory of mosaic designs，那么S地区的画家即便不看到那些物种也可以把他们画出来？

sdcar2010

Yes. It's like every Chinese kid can sing We Love Beijing TianAnMen with seeing it him or herself.