GWD6-6

呆板彻底

我也支持c对。

k认为天气突变导致种族灭绝，c直接削弱。

而b只是说有人使用了灭绝的small animals, plants, and insects

k的理论和m的理论都不否认这一点。

这道题我看到b是选的b，但看到c时就改了。注意16行的not all。表明的确有人使用small animals, plants, and insects

bigp

支持选Ｃ，道理同呆板彻底兄。

bobwangwb

我也选了C 这么想的：K反对M之处在于K认为1：天气是一个影响因素,因为climatic change did indeed occur at the end of  the Pleistocene. 。2：hunting至少不是首要原因，因为“large animal species vanished even in areas where there is no evidence to demonstrate that Paleoindians hunted them” c说climatic change occurred not only at the end of the Pleistocene era but also in previous and subsequent eras，是一个有因无果的削弱（在承认原文开头所说的extinction发生在the end of the Pleistocene era 的前提下） B说的Nor were extinctions confined to large  animals:  small animals, plants, and insects disappeared, presumably not all through human consumption。没看懂意思，请问这句话是谁的立场？我觉得是K的。 请大家帮我看看我的错在哪里，B对在哪里？ 谢谢！

建议转逻辑区讨论

[此贴子已经被作者于2005-1-29 22:16:35编辑过]

bobwangwb

我有新发现！

C的削弱方式应该是有因无果（有A 发生，但B没有发生）削弱，常理上可以接受。

但是有因无果削弱，尤其是用时间跨度削弱（题目说现在有A 发生，所以B发生，削弱说过去就有A发生过），在OG中几乎没有作为正确选项过。作为错误选项到倒是有（OG29）题目如下：

The number of people diagnosed as having a certain intestinal disease has dropped significantly in a rural county this year, as compared to last year. Health officials attribute this decrease entirely to improved sanitary conditions at water-treatment plants, which made for cleaner water this year and thus reduced the incidence of the disease.

Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the health officials’ explanation for the lower incidence of the disease?

A. Many new water-treatment plants have been built in the last five years in the rural county.

B. Bottled spring water has not been consumed in significantly different quantities by people diagnosed as having the intestinal disease, as compared to people who did not contract the disease.

C. Because of a new diagnostic technique, many people who until this year would have been diagnosed as having the intestinal disease are now correctly diagnosed as suffering from intestinal ulcers.

D. Because of medical advances this year, far fewer people who contract the intestinal disease will develop severe cases of the disease.

E. The water in the rural county was brought up to the sanitary standards of the water in neighboring counties ten years ago.

A项可以认为是跨时间的有因无果，但ETS认为“Since A supports the view that sanitary conditions have been improving, it tends to support the officials’ explanation.”

我没做过LSAT，大全没做多少，所以很困惑这种时间跨度削弱（题目说现在有A 发生，所以B发生，削弱说过去就有A发生过）是否能够作为削弱！！

     请NN指教！

jd-benyou

看来ets对他因的确是非常钟爱的;但是即便如此,本题 真难呵!!!

Still, Krech attributes

secondary if not primary responsibility

for the extinctions to the Paleoindians,

(25)      arguing that humans have produced

local extinctions elsewhere

ring_cheng

一点个人看法：

K反驳M在两点：一、K认为气候变化是最主要的原因；二、K认为人是第二位但不是第一位的原因。所以如果要削弱K对M的反驳，则应该立足于以下两点：一、气候变化不是最主要的原因，或者，二、人不是第二位而是第一位的原因。带着这种看法我们再来看看，B和C可不可以这样理解：

B  New discoveries indicating that Paleoindians made use of the small animals, plants, and insects that became extinct

C  Additional evidence indicating that widespread climatic change occurred not only at the end of the Pleistocene era but also in previous and subsequent eras

C虽然指出在the end of era之前/之后都发生过widespread climatic change，但是文中并没有完全说明“之前/之后的气候”与“动物灭绝”的关系：如果之前/之后气候变化，动物也灭绝，那么气候变化就可能是原因；如果之前/之后气候变化而动物没有灭绝，那么气候变化则可能不是原因。所以C选项其实对于反驳K对M的反驳是可以起到正反两方面的作用的。

B虽然没有完全证明“人是首要原因而非次原因”，但其正确指出了“人对动物的使用”以及“动物灭绝”的关系，因此要比C好一些（也只是比C好一些而已）。

juningw

呵呵，偶来说两句。

这题答案确定是C，因为B根本不对，文中写道：

However, anthropologist

(10)      Shepard Krech points out that large

animal species vanished even in areas

where there is no evidence to demon-

strate that Paleoindians hunted them.

Nor were extinctions confined to large

(15)      animals:  small animals, plants, and

insects disappeared, presumably not

all through human consumption.  Krech

also contradicts Martin’s exclusion of

climatic change as an explanation by

(20)      asserting that widespread climatic

       change did indeed occur at the end of the Pleistocene.

我突出显示的部分，已经明确说了Krech并不是说human没有消费这些生物，只是不全是。也即，这个不是这些生物灭绝的主要原因。那是什么？Krech继续说，反对Martin把气候变化作为生物灭绝的原因之外，而是作为第一位的原因。而第二位的原因是人。

因此，B说人消费了这些生物，能反对Krech的论点吗？实际上是加强，而不是削弱。必错。

C说气候一直在变化，就很好削弱了Krech的理论，因为它的基础就是气候的变化和这些生物的灭绝是同时的。

逻辑很清楚的啊。。。。

欢迎大砖！

[此贴子已经被作者于2005-4-1 13:42:14编辑过]

cgcg

支持C！（CD上果然巨多牛人啊，随便拿道gwd可以引用og，太强了！）不过我还停留于高中“答案文中找”的水平

B. 如楼上所说的，presumably not all through human consumption说明Paleoindians made use of ...  所以跟K的objection是一致的
C. 文中说K also contradicts M's exclusion of climatic change as an explanation by asserting that widespread climatic change did indeed ocur at the end of the Pleistocene  （K认为extinction的primary explanation是P的末期的气候变化）所以C说气候变化在P末期前后都发生，直接weaken K's objection

谢谢指教。

skidals

以下是引用流沙在2004-10-5 20:34:00的发言：

og里面有一道削弱题，大意是关于环境污染的，说现在检查出有病的人比去年少。有官员认为是因为种了树使得水源质量提高。它的正确答案是今年使用的仪器使去年诊断为得病得人确诊是误诊。

这道题目得a选项内容是，过去5年确实种了很多树（大意如此）。ets就认为这个是加强。

和这道题目非常类似，我当初想了很久所以记得很清楚。可惜记不得题号

＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝

再补充一点，这个是我当初选b的原因。我觉得气候变化之类的东东其实并不在文章一开始提出的理论范围内。文章一开始说的很清楚，他的理论是人对动物灭绝起绝对作用。

选B，支持流沙的观点。大家注意文章中说

However, anthropologist Shepard Krech points out that large animal species vanished even in areas where there is no evidence to demonstrate that Paleoindians hunted them. Nor were extinctions confined to large animals:  small animals, plants, and insects disappeared, presumably not all through human consumption.  

答案B正好击中要害，而C是在支持K关于气候论的观点，没有对K反驳M理论的论据构成削弱。

欢迎大家拍砖。

tuzq

hehe,原来俺问的问题，这里有人讨论呀。

反对B,支持C.