ChaseDream
搜索
返回列表 发新帖
查看: 1926|回复: 1
打印 上一主题 下一主题

求助reasoning!!!

[复制链接]
跳转到指定楼层
楼主
发表于 2012-8-11 11:55:28 | 只看该作者 回帖奖励 |倒序浏览 |阅读模式
Scientists analyzing air bubbles that had been trapped in Antarctic ice during the Earth’s last ice age found that the ice-age atmosphere had contained unusually large amounts of ferrous material and surprisingly small amounts of carbon dioxide. One scientist noted that algae absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. The scientist hypothesized that the ferrous material, which was contained in atmospheric dust, had promoted a great increase in the population of Antarctica algae such as diatoms.

Which one of the following, if true, would most seriously undermine the scientist’s hypothesis?

A) Diatoms are a microscopic form of algae that has remained largely unchanged since the last ice age.

(B) Computer models suggest that a large increase in ferrous material today could greatly promote the growth of oceanic algae.

(C) The dust found in the air bubbles trapped in Antarctica ice contained other minerals in addition to the ferrous material.
This option says - not ferrous but some other mineral may have promoted a great increase in the population of algae.
(D) Sediment from the ocean floor near Antarctica reflects no increase, during the last ice age, in the rate at which the shells that diatoms leave when they die accumulated.

(E) Algae that currently grow in the oceans near Antarctica do not appear to be harmed by even a large increase in exposure to ferrous material.
D是什么意思。。。答案是D
收藏收藏 收藏收藏
推荐
发表于 2012-8-11 19:38:24 | 只看该作者
The stimulus basicially says that:
Premise1: Large amounts of FM and Small amounts of CD in air bubbles during last ice age
Premise2: Algae absorb CD
Conclusion: hypothesis that FM promoted algae's population, such as diatoms
And it asks what choice Weakens the conclusion

D tells us that from what is left in the sediment, no evidence shows that diatoms' population increased. This strikes the conclusion directly.
I think it is clear that A,B and E strengthen or at least does no harm to our conclusion. C could be temping at first sight. C introduces "other minerals" into consideration which suggests that there could be "other minerals" that promoted the algae instead of the FM. (Also...it might not. we are not given enough info) However, compared to D, it doesn't attack the conclusion as directly. That's why D is a better choice.

Hope it helps. Let me know if I didn't make it clear enough.
您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 立即注册

Mark一下! 看一下! 顶楼主! 感谢分享! 快速回复:

所属分类: 法学院申请

近期活动

正在浏览此版块的会员 ()

手机版|ChaseDream|GMT+8, 2024-4-28 21:29
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号

ChaseDream 论坛

© 2003-2023 ChaseDream.com. All Rights Reserved.

返回顶部