逻辑JJ13，宇航员那个BF题自己的看法~求讨论！

笨蛋加油

13、【宇航员】
Astronomer: Observations of the Shoemaker-Levi comet on its collision course with Jupiter showed that the comet broke into fragments before entering Jupiter's atmosphere in 1994, but they did not show how big those fragments were.背景信息（或者说是给出argument想要探讨的问题）  In hopes of gaining some indication of the fragments' size目的, astronomers studied spectrographic analyses of Jupiter's outer atmosphere针对目的进行的研究.  These analyses revealed unprecedented traces of sulfur after the fragments' entry研究发现.The fragments themselves almost certainly contained no sulfur前提事实, but many astronomers believe that the cloud layer below Jupiter's outer atmosphere does contain sulfur中间部分的结论（宇航员的判断）注意：到此为句为止，上面的全部都可列为背景信息，都是用来证明下面的主结论.  Since sulfur would have seeped into the outer atmosphere if comet fragments had penetrated this cloud layer原因（前提）,it is likely that some of the fragments were at least large enough to have passed through Jupiter's outer atmosphere without being burned up（最终结论，因为这个argument本身就是想探讨fragments的大小）.
In the astronomer's argument, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?
疑似考古：#3
Astronomer:  Observations of the Shoemaker-Levi comet on its collision course with Jupiter showed that the comet broke into fragments before entering Jupiter’s atmosphere in 1994, but they did not show how big those fragments were.  Nevertheless, some indication of their size can be inferred from spectrographic analyses of Jupiter’s outer atmosphere. After the fragments’ entry, these analyses revealed unprecedented traces of sulfur.  The fragments themselves almost certainly contained no sulfur, but astronomers believe that the cloud layer below Jupiter’s outer atmosphere does contain sulfur.  Since sulfur would have seeped into the outer atmosphere if comet fragments had penetrated this cloud layer, it is likely that some of the fragments were at least large enough to have passed through Jupiter’s outer atmosphere without being burned up.
In the astronomer’s argument, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?
A. The first is a claim that the astronomer seeks to show is true; the second acknowledges a consideration that weighs against the truth of that claim.
B. The first is a claim that the astronomer seeks to show is true; the second provides evidence in support of the truth of that claim.
C. The first and the second are each considerations advanced in support of the conclusion of the argument.（正确答案）
D. The first provides evidence in support of the conclusion of the argument; the second is that conclusion.
E. The first is a circumstance for which the astronomer seeks to provide an explanation; the second acknowledges a consideration that weighs against the explanation provided by the astronomer

maylovemay

BF 是哪两句啊

笨蛋加油

BF 是哪两句啊

-- by 会员 maylovemay (2012/3/8 19:43:35)

JJ上说是第一句和最后一句，但是没确定黑了多少。。。GWD上的是After the fragments’ entry, these analyses revealed unprecedented traces of sulfur.和sulfur would have seeped into the outer atmosphere if comet fragments had penetrated this cloud layer
咱就把所有部分都分析下吧。。。

sdcar2010

Astronomer: Observations of the Shoemaker-Levi comet on its collision course with Jupiter showed that the comet broke into fragments before entering Jupiter's atmosphere in 1994, but they did not show how big those fragments were. In hopes of gaining some indication of the fragments' size, astronomers studied spectrographic analyses of Jupiter's outer atmosphere. These analyses revealed unprecedented traces of sulfur after the fragments' entry. The fragments themselves almost certainly contained no sulfur, but many astronomers believe that the cloud layer below Jupiter's outer atmosphere does contain sulfur. Since sulfur would have seeped into the outer atmosphere if comet fragments had penetrated this cloud layer, it is likely that some of the fragments were at least large enough to have passed through Jupiter's outer atmosphere without being burned up.

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

A. The first presents a circumstance for which the astronomer offers an explanation; the second is part of that explanation.

B. The first acknowledges a consideration that weighs against the conclusion of the argument; the second is that conclusion.

C. The first acknowledges a consideration that weighs against the conclusion of the argument; the second provides evidence in support of that conclusion.

D. The first provides evidence in support of the conclusion of the argument; the second acknowledges a consideration that weighs against that conclusion.

E. The first is a judgment advanced in support of the conclusion of the argument; the second is that conclusion.


For this one, E is the correct answer.

sdcar2010

Astronomer: Observations of the Shoemaker-Levi comet on its collision course with Jupiter showed that the comet broke into fragments before entering Jupiter’s atmosphere 23 in 1994, but they did not show how big those fragments were. Nevertheless, some indication of their size can be inferred from spectrographic analyses of Jupiter’s outer atmosphere. After the fragments’ entry, these analyses revealed unprecedented traces of sulfur. The fragments themselves almost certainly contained no sulfur, but astronomers believe that the cloud layer below Jupiter’s outer atmosphere does contain sulfur. Since sulfur would have seeped into the outer atmosphere if comet fragments had penetrated this cloud layer, it is likely that some of the fragments were at least large enough to have passed through Jupiter’s outer atmosphere without being burned up.
In the astronomer’s argument, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?

A. The first is a claim that the astronomer seeks to show is true; the second
acknowledges a consideration that weighs against the truth of that claim.

B. The first is a claim that the astronomer seeks to show is true; the second provides evidence in support of the truth of that claim.

C. The first and the second are each considerations advanced in support of the conclusion of the argument.

D. The first provides evidence in support of the conclusion of the argument; the second is that conclusion.

E. The first is a circumstance for which the astronomer seeks to provide an
explanation; the second acknowledges a consideration that weighs against the explanation provided by the astronomer.


For this one, C is the correct answer.

深圳的游子

逻辑的狗，看看有个大概印象就好，不用太过注意的，SC的千万不要看

xingym

这题C选项中的consideration是什么意思： 第一个部分应该是事实， 第二部分是推测， 这些都算是considerations吗

quote]
Astronomer: Observations of the Shoemaker-Levi comet on its collision course with Jupiter showed that the comet broke into fragments before entering Jupiter’s atmosphere 23 in 1994, but they did not show how big those fragments were. Nevertheless, some indication of their size can be inferred from spectrographic analyses of Jupiter’s outer atmosphere. After the fragments’ entry, these analyses revealed unprecedented traces of sulfur. The fragments themselves almost certainly contained no sulfur, but astronomers believe that the cloud layer below Jupiter’s outer atmosphere does contain sulfur. Since sulfur would have seeped into the outer atmosphere if comet fragments had penetrated this cloud layer, it is likely that some of the fragments were at least large enough to have passed through Jupiter’s outer atmosphere without being burned up.
In the astronomer’s argument, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?

A. The first is a claim that the astronomer seeks to show is true; the second
acknowledges a consideration that weighs against the truth of that claim.

B. The first is a claim that the astronomer seeks to show is true; the second provides evidence in support of the truth of that claim.

C. The first and the second are each considerations advanced in support of the conclusion of the argument.

D. The first provides evidence in support of the conclusion of the argument; the second is that conclusion.

E. The first is a circumstance for which the astronomer seeks to provide an
explanation; the second acknowledges a consideration that weighs against the explanation provided by the astronomer.


For this one, C is the correct answer.

-- by 会员 sdcar2010 (2012/3/9 11:14:35)

[/quote]

笨蛋加油

[quote]Astronomer: Observations of the Shoemaker-Levi comet on its collision course with Jupiter showed that the comet broke into fragments before entering Jupiter’s atmosphere 23 in 1994, but they did not show how big those fragments were. Nevertheless, some indication of their size can be inferred from spectrographic analyses of Jupiter’s outer atmosphere. After the fragments’ entry, these analyses revealed unprecedented traces of sulfur. The fragments themselves almost certainly contained no sulfur, but astronomers believe that the cloud layer below Jupiter’s outer atmosphere does contain sulfur. Since sulfur would have seeped into the outer atmosphere if comet fragments had penetrated this cloud layer, it is likely that some of the fragments were at least large enough to have passed through Jupiter’s outer atmosphere without being burned up.
In the astronomer’s argument, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?

A. The first is a claim that the astronomer seeks to show is true; the second
acknowledges a consideration that weighs against the truth of that claim.

B. The first is a claim that the astronomer seeks to show is true; the second provides evidence in support of the truth of that claim.

C. The first and the second are each considerations advanced in support of the conclusion of the argument.

D. The first provides evidence in support of the conclusion of the argument; the second is that conclusion.

E. The first is a circumstance for which the astronomer seeks to provide an
explanation; the second acknowledges a consideration that weighs against the explanation provided by the astronomer.


For this one, C is the correct answer.

-- by 会员 sdcar2010 (2012/3/9 11:14:35)

谢谢NN的准确答案，我了解了O(∩_∩)O~