[求助]gwd-5-Q2&Q19

peitoujosh

Q2:

Guidebook writer:  I have visited hotels throughout the country and have noticed that in those built before 1930 the quality of the original carpentry work is generally superior to that in hotels built afterward.  Clearly carpenters working on hotels before 1930 typically worked with more skill, care, and effort than carpenters who have worked on hotels built subsequently.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the guidebook writer’s argument?

The quality of original carpentry in hotels is generally far superior to the quality of original carpentry in other structures, such as houses and stores.

Hotels built since 1930 can generally accommodate more guests than those built before 1930.

The materials available to carpenters working before 1930 were not significantly different in quality from the materials available to carpenters working after 1930.

The better the quality of original carpentry in a building, the less likely that building is to fall into disuse and be demolished.

The average length of apprenticeship for carpenters has declined significantly since 1930.

不了解这题的答案为何是

Q19:

Historian:  In the Drindian Empire, censuses were conducted annually to determine the population of each village.  Village census records for the last half of the 1600’s are remarkably complete.  This very completeness makes one point stand out; in five different years, villages overwhelmingly reported significant population declines.  Tellingly, each of those five years immediately followed an increase in a certain Drindian tax.  This tax, which was assessed on villages, was computed by the central government using the annual census figures.  Obviously, whenever the tax went up, villages had an especially powerful economic incentive to minimize the number of people they recorded; and concealing the size of a village’s population from government census takers would have been easy.  Therefore, it is reasonable to think that the reported declines did not happen.

In the historian’s argument, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?

The first supplies a context for the historian’s argument; the second acknowledges a consideration that has been used to argue against the position the historian seeks to establish.

The first presents evidence to support the position that the historian seeks to establish; the second acknowledges a consideration that has been used to argue against that position.

The first provides a context for certain evidence that supports the position that the historian seeks to establish; the second is that position.

The first is a position for which the historian argues; the second is an assumption that serves as the basis of that argument.

The first is an assumption that the historian explicitly makes in arguing for a certain position; the second acknowledges a consideration that calls that assumption into question.

这题我选B,可是答案是C...

有前辈可以提供bold  face的必杀技吗?

Baker

Sorry I cannot type Chinese in this computer now. I try to answer your question.

Q2:

The author can not draw the conclusion that carpentry with more skill before 1930 than after simply based on

the existing hotels built before 1930. Maybe these hotel were the only  most sturdy ones and left untouched, the majority

of hotels before 1930 were gone long time ago. Only D indicates this posibility.

I may be wrong, just let me know. thanks.

peitoujosh

非常感谢,可否再帮忙回答Q19?

Baker

oh, I try the second one.

the historian concludes that the reported declines did not happen, why? because he cites the fact that the census records are very complete in the first place. So the C points this out. The B indicates the opposite direction. The historian does not argue against that position. This is just my understanding.