GWD6-6

redhead

选B。

xianbd

刚做这个题 我也选的C

感觉题眼可能在那个M's theory上

因为M的理论没有说天气 所以就无所谓反不反对了 自然C就起不到weaken的作用了

dingxiang

忍不住来发言

当然是选B，C不削弱。理由如下:

  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.  Krech also contradicts Martin’s exclusion of climatic change as an explanation by asserting that widespread climatic change did indeed occur at the end of the Pleistocene.

PM的逻辑是： 大动物灭绝，是由于人类对这些动物的consumption

SK反对PM的逻辑：如果说是由于人类 对大动物的consumption而导致动物灭绝的话， 为什么在人类没有出现的地方，大动物照样灭绝。而且照PM的逻辑小动物应该不受影响，注意SK这里用的  presumably  （LDOCE：used to say that you think something is probably true，也就是假设的意思，即presume的副词），所以这里SK用了一个假设，来反驳PM。 那么自然如果SK的这个假设不成立，也就谈不上他对PM的反驳了。这就是B的思路。

B.      New discoveries indicating that Paleoindians made use of the small animals, plants, and insects that became extinct （在GMAT的逻辑里面，是典型的反对假设，故而削弱结论）

B.      New discoveries indicating that Paleoindians made use of the small animals, plants, and insects that became extinct （在GMAT的逻辑里面，是典型的反对假设，故而削弱结论）

B.      New discoveries indicating that Paleoindians made use of the small animals, plants, and insects that became extinct （在GMAT的逻辑里面，是典型的反对假设，故而削弱结论）

再来看C：

原文后面说SK反对PM完全排除climate的因素，因为climate确实在P时代末发生，用的是同时发生，故互为因果的逻辑。

选项C：

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

说climate 不单单在P末发生，在其前面、后面都有发生。但是注意了，文章第一句话the wave of species extinctions that occurred in North America about 11,000 years ago, at the end of the Pleistocene era ，只是说明了灭绝在P末发生，并没有说明P前后的情况。 而C只是单单说了气候在P前后的情况，并没有讲动物的灭绝说明。如果C改成说 气候在P前后已经发生，而且动物的灭绝也在这前后发生， 那么就是加强了SK对PM的反驳。可惜C只说了一方面的情况，我们不能由此推测出什么。

BTW，我读文章的时候，就注意到了这个presumably, 因为OG里面有相应的考点。OG10－163 , 题目里面考的就是presumably 这个词汇， 163题问的就是哪个是作者的推测，而非事实。 共大家参考

[此贴子已经被作者于2008-7-18 12:00:46编辑过]

Zspirit

突然明白鸟，只有B能weaken，C不能

之前一直觉得题目中Krech’s objections to Martin’s theory这句话中的objection是复数，就说明K的objection包含两个方面，即1，人类活动不是影响因素；2，气候变化是影响因素。

所以，只要能有现象表明：1，人类活动是影响因素（选项B）；2，气候变化不是影响因素（选项C），就能weaken K的objections。

但是，真正的问题是，这里忽略了Krech’s objections to Martin’s theory这句的后半段——to M's theory。M的理论中只涉及到人类活动这个影响因素！M在创建自己理论的时候没有考虑气候变化的因素，但并不代表不考虑气候变化的因素是其理论的一部分！所以，题目中所问到的K的objections只可能是和人类活动的影响有关的部分，所以也就只能由B来weaken！

个人觉得，这是题目的一个大陷阱。。。

hornololo

个人觉得如果B要WEAKEN的话应该指出 Paleoindians CONSUME small animals, plants, and insects TO A CERTAIN EXTENT THAT 可以导致它们灭绝,如果仅仅说Paleoindians made use of the small animals, plants, and insects that became extinct 是和SK的观点一致的

SK反对PM的逻辑: 灭绝不仅仅局限于LARGE ANIMALS,小动物也灭绝了( presumably not all through human consumption),注意:NOT ALL

说明SK承认人类确实MADE USE OF SMALL ANIMALS,但他假设人类的CONSUMPSTION并不是导致小动物灭绝的全部原因,也就是说人类的CONSUMPTION并没有到达可以导致小动物灭绝的程度.所以B
            New discoveries indicating that Paleoindians made use of the small animals, plants, and insects that became extinct  并不能削弱

FUTHER DISCUSSION NEEDED..

sfan201

使用这些逐渐灭绝的东西 doesn't mean it caused this small animals,plants to become extinct. And in the passage, K alread admitted "small animal" was consumed by human being but it's not all consumed by human being. So it doesn't weaken.

我不太同意valarie的观点，K object M时说“small animals, plants, and insects disappeared, presumably not all through human consumption.”，而B选项说得是人吃了这些灭绝的小动物，直接weaken了K的说法，与是否能造成灭绝没有关系。削弱只是把80%降低到40%的过程，没有充分性。

xdf的蓝皮书上给的答案就是B。

至于C选项，文中说at the end of P 发生了气候的改变，C选项承认了at the end 并且加了一个previous and subsequent，即使之前和之后都发生气候的变化，也对K说得 end 发生了也没有削弱作用啊。

gwlzhf

虽然我还是感觉B不太对，但是C是明显错了（想了好久，终于明白了）

其实大家都错误的判断了一个事实，文中只是说Krech also contradicts Martin’s exclusion of climatic change as an explanation by asserting that widespread climatic change did indeed occur at the end of the Pleistocene，M只是排除了天气的变化是动物灭绝的一个解释，但是M并没有否认是否存在天气变化。换言之，M可能知道有天气变化，只是认为天气变化不是动物灭绝的原因而已。K反对M除外天气变化是原因，K提出有天气变化，这个理由根本没有反对K，所以如果知道天气变化非常强烈就可以反对M（加强K的反对），如果天气变化很多也可部分的反对M（部分的加强K的反对）。

phyroc

应该是C吧

文中Krech反对的理由是“large animal species vanished even in areas where there is no evidence to demonstrate that Paleoindians hunted them.”

B选项说的是small animals，应该是irrelant吧

何况文章也说了“Nor were extinctions confined to large animals:  small animals, plants, and insects disappeared, presumably not all through human consumption.”，说明大家都知道human要米西大小动物的，B中说发现了人吃小动物，仅仅对已知事实的一个再陈述，无法削弱。

[此贴子已经被作者于2008-10-5 18:40:02编辑过]

emilyzouduff

以下是引用Zspirit在2008-8-7 1:43:00的发言：

突然明白鸟，只有B能weaken，C不能

之前一直觉得题目中Krech’s objections to Martin’s theory这句话中的objection是复数，就说明K的objection包含两个方面，即1，人类活动不是影响因素；2，气候变化是影响因素。

所以，只要能有现象表明：1，人类活动是影响因素（选项B）；2，气候变化不是影响因素（选项C），就能weaken K的objections。

但是，真正的问题是，这里忽略了Krech’s objections to Martin’s theory这句的后半段——to M's theory。M的理论中只涉及到人类活动这个影响因素！M在创建自己理论的时候没有考虑气候变化的因素，但并不代表不考虑气候变化的因素是其理论的一部分！所以，题目中所问到的K的objections只可能是和人类活动的影响有关的部分，所以也就只能由B来weaken！

个人觉得，这是题目的一个大陷阱。。。

厉害厉害，同意~~！！

fujuoo

I think C is the right answer.

K asserts that clamatic change is the primary reason for the extinction and human activity is the second.

B,however,states the phrase " make use of" ,which does not mean "deplete". K attribute the human activity as secondary reason to the extinction. Thus, "make us of " partly supports rather than weakens K's argument. By the way, B just states the fact that "Paleoindians makes use of small animals that became extinct", does not indicate any relations between the "consumption" and the "extinction". In this perception, I regard B as an irrelevant item.

C,if climatic change occured previously. Why did not the extinction occur then? Thus there must be factors other than clamatic change that conttribute to the extinction. K's argument is weakened here.