Helr GMAT题库 周周练 Helr-CR-001 (答案和解析已放出)

emmaru

参与讨论
我选A
因为如果该物种有的天生就有该缺陷，那么就无从判断挖掘出的带缺陷的化石到底是人为的还是自然的，进而也就无法判断是不是玛雅人造成的

liqiumeng

参与讨论

我理解原题的逻辑思路：

鹿头            有伤  
maya的猎物头   有伤
-->
鹿头 =  maya的猎物头


同类逻辑错误典型：

牛 吃草
马 吃草
-->
牛 =  马

削弱的方法：（稍后补充，领导来了，先去开会）

009110

I choose A

Olina加油

本来打算考完托福参加的，结果没忍住~~

在A和E中纠结，然后偷偷看了baby的贴~~

我就屈服了，那么小的一个词，severe都可以发现，我直接都忽略了~~

支持E！

LifeCreator

E吧

HerringtonD

参与投票
支持baby姐~~

参与讨论
选E


Weaken
Premise 1: In G, archea find fossils of ancient dears: injury at forehead
Premise 2: at that time, only the Maya used the trap that injure the forehead
Conclusion: the fossil dears = Maya's prey


okay, it seems that the author assumes: the way Maya prey the dear was THE ONLY REASON for the forehead-injury found on the fossil.
When reading I notice that Premise 2 says "at that time" (original words "in the period the ancient deer lived"). There's a huge gap! What if the forehead-injury found on the fossil did not occur at that time? (For example, the fossil could be damaged at forehead over the long long history when buried underground)


A. "some ... innate impairment on forehead" - maybe... keep this on
B. "no additional damage" - wow! that was exactly what I think! BUT, this STRENGTHENS the argument!
C. again, this makes the conclusion more likely. STRENGTHEN
D. "If dear was struck by trap, no treatment available" ... If anything, this strengthens the argument by showing that the forehead-injury left untreated.
E. this strongly suggests OTHER factors take in part. consistent to my prediction.

Look back at A... oh i see!! the question says "severe impairment", but choice A does not say the innate impairment is severe. Even if the dears have innate impairment, it could also be the hunters who causes the additional impairment (to reach a "severe" level). So Choice A does not challenge the conclusion. Choice E does a great job in stating the "extent" of impairment.

Helr-CR-1

In Guatemala, archaeologists discovered that some fossils of ancient Elaphurus davidianus, an ancient deer in America, have some severe impairment on forehead of the deer. Clearly, therefore, in the period the ancient deer lived, since only the Maya used the trap that first struck the forehead of the prey, the fossils archaeologists discovered must be those of Maya’s prey.
Which of the following, if true, most weakens the argument above?
A. Some of ancient Elaphurus davidianus do have innate impairment on forehead.
B. The acid rain in Guatemala did not make additional damage on the fossils of ancient Elaphurus davidianus.
C. A great many Maya hunters, who frequently used the trap, lived in Guatemala.
D. Even if the ancient deer was struck by the trap, there would have been no treatment for it available in the period it lived.
E. The trap Maya used could not impair the preys to the extent comparable to that of archaeologist’s discovery

-- by 会员 GMAT (2012/7/2 22:11:56)

-- by 会员 babybearmm (2012/7/3 3:36:34)

pterosaur

选E 最后的结论是鹿的伤害是猎人造成的。E直接就否定了鹿的伤害不是猎人的，当然是E了。

wawaking1982

选E
BCD无关选项
A也是削弱，但程度不像E那么强，E是可以直接否定题干的结论，而A只是提出一种可能性，并不是否定

邹志鹏

很明显 选E

zhaobingd

我认为是E。E的削弱比较直接。而A就差点了。