小菜鸟再来问个prep08的CR74题

kaixfu09

74.   (29534-!-item-!-188;#058&004138)

Ina certain wildlife park, park rangers are able to track the movements of manyrhinoceroses because those animals wear radio collars.  When, as often happens, a collar slips off,it is put back on.  utting a collar on arhinoceros involves immobilizing the animal by shooting it with a tranquilizerdart.  Female rhinoceroses that have beenfrequently recollared have significantly lower fertility rates than uncollaredfemales.  robably, therefore, somesubstance in the tranquilizer inhibits fertility.
Inevaluating the argument, it would be most useful to determine which of thefollowing?
A.Whether there are more collared female rhinoceroses than uncollared femalerhinoceroses in the park
B.How the tranquilizer that is used for immobilizing rhinoceroses differs, if atall, from tranquilizers used in working with other large mammals
C.How often park rangers need to use tranquilizer darts to immobilizerhinoceroses for reasons other than attaching radio collars
D.Whether male rhinoceroses in the wildlife park lose their collars any moreoften than the park’s female rhinoceroses do
E.Whether radio collars are the only practical means that park rangers have fortracking the movements of rhinoceroses in the park
看了半天虽然觉得ABDE确实都无关，但是C也只削弱无加强吧？
照着新东方的说法这类evaluation就看看对答案回答yes和no之后对原文argument是否有加强和削弱的效果。这题的C如果确实Tranquilizer被用在很多其他方面说明他和母犀牛受孕能力低下无关削弱了原文，但是反过来就算T只用在recollar上的话不是对原文既不加强也不削弱么？说不定是collar影响了繁殖能力而非T影响？是不是如果其他无关的情况下一个选项稍微有点关系就是正确呢？
求教各位NN解答，还有十多天就考了，心里没底啊。。

huangxuebin

来坛子刷寂静，看到就随便说说。

题目的结论是，某种物质影响母的rhinocerose生育能力。
a. 某种物质是针对带collar的，所以，不带collar的和结论无关
b. 结论针对rhinocerose，和别的动物无关。
d. 结论针对母的，和公的无关
e. collar是否实用，也没啥关系。

kaixfu09

谢谢楼上的回复。这题就是感觉C也怪怪的。虽然是比其他四个选项好点

守株待羊

我也看到这道题感觉C怪怪的，上来搜到这个帖子，顺便说一下我最后的理解：

逻辑链是：t高，r的生育率低；推测t导致生育率低
而C说有很多其他原因在用t，说白了，就是想说t不一定高（比如对一部分r来说，recollar会多用t，但other情况的时候可能就少用了t），相当于“相关性不存在”的削弱。

JOY.COM

分析一下C：recoller的犀牛生育率小于uncoller的犀牛，理由是tranquilizer，也就是说这个结论的前提是recoller的犀牛比uncoller的犀牛接受了更多的tranquilizer，tranquilizer导致fertility降低。然而题目的前提只给出了recoller导致犀牛接受tranquilizer，却没有说uncoller的犀牛是否通过其他途径摄取tranquilizer。假设有这样的途径，那么题目的逻辑就不一定成立了。