26883-!-item-!-188;#058&002985 prep上的题 也是GWD的

芍芍曼

Astronomer: Observations of theShoemaker-Levi comet on its collision course with Jupiter showed that the cometbroke into fragments before entering Jupiter's atmosphere in 1994, but they didnot show how big those fragments were.以上描述一个背景  In hopes of gaining some indication of the fragments' size,目的 astronomers studied spectrographic analyses of Jupiter'souter atmosphere.  These analysesrevealed unprecedented traces of sulfur after the fragments' entry. 之前没有转折 The fragments themselves almost certainly containedno sulfur, but many astronomers believe that the cloud layer below Jupiter'souter atmosphere does contain sulfur.  Since sulfur would have seeped into the outeratmosphere if comet fragments had penetrated this cloud layer, it is likelythat some of the fragments were at least large enough达到目的 to have passed through Jupiter'souter atmosphere without being burned up.

整个文章没有转折

In the astronomer's argument, thetwo portions in boldface play which of the following roles?

(A) The first presents acircumstance for which the astronomer offers an explanation错误; the second is part of that explanation.

(B) The first acknowledges aconsideration that weighs againstthe conclusion of the argument; the second is that conclusion.

(C) The first acknowledges aconsideration that weighs againstthe conclusion of the argument; the second provides evidence in support of thatconclusion.

(D) The first provides evidence insupport of the conclusion of the argument; the second acknowledges aconsideration that weighs againstthat conclusion.

(E) The first is a judgmentadvanced in support of the conclusion of the argument; the second is thatconclusion.
还是搞不懂A为什么是错的呢 有没有高人可以解答一下的啊

djdyzqq

同问，我做的时候在A和E中犹豫了很久，最终由于对E的advanced理解偏差选错了，想来想去觉得A应该错在了explain上。不知对不对，希望高手解惑。

danyuchn

The first presents acircumstance for which the astronomer offers an explanation

錯是錯在這個地方。原文裡的第一個BF部分是在講「（儘管）樣本中沒有s，但學者堅信一定有s」。換言之，並不是在同一個方向找原因，而是學者認知與樣本證據之間的contradiction。