天山-4-32

lele19832002

啊？NN再来确认一下吧~~

我觉得boldface1就是一个事实啊~~

ningning6000

but the fact that " Delta products, Inc., has recently switch at least partly from older technologies using fossil fuels to new technologies powered by electricity" can be cite as evidence to support the conslusion " for.." , is e is ok?

where is NN can help?

joeysue

这题很tricky，

e 是对的，结论只说公司耗油比以前少了，没说新技术问题。所以 bf1说部分采用了新技术，bf2说新技术蚝油少。两个一起才是充分条件。

Lucky0506

仔细想了想，其实这道题不难。

有点tricky是因为它用了倒着写了。如果这样子写的：

The question has been raised whether it can be concluded that for a given level of output, Delta's operation now causes less fossil fuel to be consumed than it did formerly.  The answer, clearly, is yes,

since the smount of fossil fuel used to generate the electricity needed to power the new technologies is less than the amount needed to power the older technologies, provided that the level of output is held constant.

（and since）Delta products, Inc., has recently switch at least partly from older technologies using fossil fuels to new technologies powered by electricity.  

那么答案则非常明显。（E）

vivinzone

支持E!

babydevil

天山题目都是考生考后背出来的，很可能这道题背错了。

我觉得A选项中的content应该是context,这样A就是正确选项了。否则5个选项没一个贴切的。

wennier

以下是引用Lucky0506在2005-8-17 17:26:00的发言：

仔细想了想，其实这道题不难。

有点tricky是因为它用了倒着写了。如果这样子写的：

The question has been raised whether it can be concluded that for a given level of output, Delta's operation now causes less fossil fuel to be consumed than it did formerly.  The answer, clearly, is yes,

since the smount of fossil fuel used to generate the electricity needed to power the new technologies is less than the amount needed to power the older technologies, provided that the level of output is held constant.

（and since）Delta products, Inc., has recently switch at least partly from older technologies using fossil fuels to new technologies powered by electricity.  

那么答案则非常明显。（E）

lucky MM这么着解释也太牵强了了吧。

让我们再来整理一下思路。

D P Inc.将部分使用燃油的老技术转为用电的新技术（BF1）。就此有人提出了疑问，是否由此（技术的变更）就能得出结论说一定量产出的油耗就较以前为少呢？答案毫无疑问是肯定的 。。。(BF2)

注意：question的内容是whether it can be concluded。。。说明“油耗是否减少”这个问题的提出是基于“技术的变更这个措施的实施”。即先有技术变更，再有人提出了疑问，再有文章肯定的结论。

因此，答案只能是A， E是无论如何不成立的。

sammaijgd

选A,BF1就是一个fact,中立色彩,根本谈不上支持结论

A中identify词用的很好,怎么看都象ETS喜欢的说法

foreinter

是不是印刷错了？A中的content是context,第一句话只说明了一个事实，并未支持结论

amacd

以下是引用foreinter在2005-10-4 14:25:00的发言：
是不是印刷错了？A中的content是context,第一句话只说明了一个事实，并未支持结论

我想如果照Ａ的写法　(content of the conclusion)只是依種很繞口的方式來說１）bold face = conclusion..