北美 二战650

xiaowei0805

还有这篇~

3.问题

Q1：主旨？（740狗主确认，可以秒选）

现在的成本算法outdated



Q2：第二段的作用？/举了这两个工厂的例子是为了什么?（740狗主确认，可以秒选）

说明这种成本计算方法的缺陷和不足/选了举例说明成本计算的偏差. (本月710狗主 V38)



Q3：如果不这么推算，use new accounting method会怎样？

选项有：蓝色笔用实际法算后profit margin较以前低了。
           ALL 所有笔的成本：用实际法算后，较以前高了。
所有笔的成本，用实际法算后，较以前低了。

Lavender pencil的实际利润没有算的那么多，profit margin会降低

V40大牛反映此题不确定，选项非常绕，请大家上考场仔细斟酌~！



Q4：为什么蓝色笔的成本会高估？（可以秒选了）

我选的是A. 因为cost 算多了(本月710狗主 V33)

因为其他笔的marketing cost之类的overhead成本被摊到它身上(本月670狗主 V31)

Traditional evaluation system的问题

Blue pen的loss of overhead is less than expected



*Q5：公司B的其他颜色的笔成本会怎样？/第二个公司的彩色铅笔成本报告怎么样（可秒）

成本被低估/选了成本报告被低估。其他选项中有提到overhead cost是低了还是高了(本月710狗主 V38)



Q6：为什么公司B会产生成本偏差？

V1因为蓝色笔的成本被高估

V2选了lavender铅笔的成本低估（与机经选的不一样）(本月710狗主 V38)



Q7：对于传统成本计算方法的评价？

不能运用于现在的生产



Q8：如果用推荐的strategy（去掉蓝笔），那其他笔cost reported怎么变?

答提高了。。。因为没有蓝色帮忙拖平均值了。(本月740狗主 V38)

-- by 会员 sparklelynn (2012/11/30 4:05:47)

Q3 我选的是 蓝色笔用实际法算后profit margin较以前低了。
Q6 我选的 lavender铅笔的成本低估 和V2 一样
其他基本上和给出的答案差不多。 希望可以帮上忙。。。

xiaowei0805

还有这一篇的题目很混乱 望补充LZ

17、食物链里的毒素
1. 主题思路：

水里有种化学物质，通过食物链影响了很多生物，举了algea的例子，导致食物链高端的一些动物体内聚集了大量有毒物质。但对于mammal和bird好像并没有被有毒物质影响，貌似是因为肺部（lung）的结构不同，这两者lung是转换air的，而fish靠腮，反正不一样。



2. 段落大意：

P1：Biomagnification是指毒素通过动物组织沿着食物链移动。这种移动在不易通过尿或者粪便排泄出去的脂溶性化学物质中是稳定的。Gobas这个人是研究B的第一人。为了反映化学物质，科学家开始使用KOW这一概念，以便观察含脂肪的化学物质是如何在水中溶解的，并且预测这种化学物质怎么通过鱼的腮（gill），从鱼的血液里流入水中。Low-Kow说明这种水溶性的化学物质不影响鱼的食物链，并且是很安全的。



P2：但是，环境学家认为这个假设不对，提出哺乳动物和鸟类可能不能排泄这种化学毒素，因为它们的肺接触空气而不是水，因此提出Koa的概念。



P3：最后Gobas也说Low Kow并且high Koa的有潜在危险的，证实了Biomagnification，即毒素随着食物链的增长会沉积。



3.题目：

【答案确定】***Q1.algae高亮，问作用/高亮algea，问为什么举这个例子。

备选答案：海藻处在食物链最低端，毒素最低

选了因为algea是well known的处于低端食物链的东西。(本月710狗主 Q48，V38)

有题目高亮海藻，因为海藻处于食物链的最低端。



**Q2.如果在一个Low KOW的区域的北极熊的toxic concentration is high, infer什么？

备选答案：北极熊是以陆生动物为食。

有题目是熊的KOW低，因为它以陆生动物为生。



Q3. 哪种case符合文章第二段的情况



*Q4.关于bear的说法正确的是?

选了其身上的毒素是从algea中积累的。(本月710狗主 Q48，V38)



Q5. 我记得toxin那篇里面有个题目说，如果KOW很低的话，那么下列选项哪个正确：

选项说什么bears一定吃很多种鱼；一定生活在industry area；还有什么海藻什么的。反正挺纠结的，看不出来哪个对。



4.疑似原文：

Biomagnification means that the level of toxin in animals' tissues rises as one moves up the food chain. For instance, as larvae eat algae, fish eat the larvae, and bigger fish eat smaller fish, the toxin present in the algae becomes increasingly concentrated; top predators like swordfish and polar bears end up with the highest doses in their tissues. This can happen with stable, fat-soluble chemicals that aren't easily excreted in urine or feces. Biomagnification was first studied in the late 1960s in aquatic food webs, explains Frank Gobas, professor at Simon Fraser
University and leader of the study. To screen chemicals, scientists began using a property known as Kow, which indicates how readily a chemical dissolves in water compared with fat and thus predicts how easily it will move from a fish's blood lipids into water through its gills. Low-Kow, or more water soluble, chemicals don't build up in the fish food chain and were assumed to be safe.


Environmental chemists realized, however, that this assumption might not hold in food chains involving mammals and birds because their lungs are in contact with air, not water. This means that many chemicals that are relatively soluble in water and therefore don't accumulate in fish might remain in the tissues of land animals if they aren't volatile enough to easily move from the lungs into the air (predicted by a property called Koa). Supporting this idea, some organic chemicals that don't biomagnify in fish appeared to be doing so in other wildlife and humans.



To explore this hypothesis, Gobas and graduate student Barry Kelly and colleagues collected plant and animal tissue samples— from lichens to beluga whales killed in Inuit hunts—in the Arctic, where, because of weather patterns and cold temperatures, organic pollutant leve
ls are high. They tested the samples not only for known POPs but also for several chemicals with a low Kow but high Koa, which suggested they might biomagnify in air-breathing animals. The measured levels of contaminants for various animals in aquatic and land food webs were similar to those predicted from a bioaccumulation model incorporating Koa and Kow, suggesting the model was correct. Chemicals with low Kow and high Koa stood out as potentially risky.

-- by 会员 sparklelynn (2012/11/30 4:07:52)

对不起这篇我确实回忆不起什么了。
我逻辑考到了 一个国王给自己的士兵选择比较便宜的盔甲一题。 还有不让学生上网找资料，让学校在图书馆找资料一题。