天山-3-3

babypace

选E的。

D的错误在于题目讲了是per acre的比较，所以种多少和比较没有相关。

选B也是错误的，题目不讨论modified seed是否推广于其他crops，只是说是否合适cotton的种植。

所以只有E合适一些。

yuying6239

很明显选b嘛!!评价的时候当然要队结论拉!!

还有没有谁能解释 清楚些

!!请讲 !!

paulineliao

选D吧

wennier

以下是引用dongyuntao在2005-8-17 9:41:00的发言：

B正确的前提是other crops指modified seeds，否则大家都同意B是无关项。我反复读了题目，仍然认为改良后的棉花就成了另外一种农作物实在太牵强，所以仍然坚定E.

我同意上述观点，other crops应该指的就是其他种类的作物，怎么能把普通棉算一类，改造后的就算作另一类crops了呢！

但我仍坚持选B，原因如下：

B.   Whether the insecticides typically used on ordinary cotton tend to be more
expensive than insecticides typically used on other crops (我想这里比较棉花杀虫剂和其他作物杀虫剂是为了说明那个slightly lower的意义，如果以前棉花杀虫剂价格非常高，那即使slightly也会大大降低总成本，否则，引进新的就没什么意义了。而不是解释说other crops包不包括新棉的问题，肯定不包括！我建议对这个选项的作用的理解要换个角度了)

C.  Whether for most farmers who grow cotton it is their primary crop

D. Whether the farmers who have tried the modified seed planted as many acres of cotton, on average, as farmers using the ordinary seed did (种粮多少与经济利益对比没有关系)

E.   Whether most of the farmers who tried the modified seed did so because they had previously had to use exceptionally large quantities of insecticide. (条件1明确指出新旧棉花的杀虫剂使用量差异不大，对这个问题回答是或否都不会再有任何影响了)

MM选B的时候肯定了即使slightly lower也可能大大降低总成本，为何在E上又把这个推论给否定了呢。

毫无疑问，这题的正确答案应该是E.

beechanooi

B is wrong, E is correct.

The conclusion in the argument is "switching to the modified seed would be unlikely to benefit most cotton farmers economically." Even if the answer to question B is yes - "insecticides used on ordinary cotton are more expensive than insectivides used on other crops", the cotton farmers still do not care - because they probably don't plant other crops at all.

E actually provides possible reason to evaluate (actually weaken) the argument: if the farmers previously had to use exceptionally large quantities of insecticide, they proabaly over used the insecticide on the genetic modified cotton. Please note in the argument it is said "According to the farmer's reports, the amount ..." So the finding that the amount of insecticide needed only slightly lower than ... probably is not an accurate statement. Thus the conclusion of this argument will be weakend, at least not convincing.

When I took this test, it took me about 4 minutes to realize this. Even I think I chose the right answer E, I lost so much precious time on this question ...

[此贴子已经被作者于2005-9-16 8:43:51编辑过]

mauricewang

此题的前提是:新种子的成本比原来的高，而且又没有产生更高的市场价值;推出结论:用新种子不能给棉农带来经济利益,或者可用下式表示:Benefit=Market value-(weed cost+insecticide cost).如果换种新种子,Benefit,Market value 没变,而Weed cost增加了,insecticide cost只减少了一点,不足以抵消新种子增加的cost,所以Benefit小于等于用原来的种子.在上式中,Market value没变, weed cost 增加,这两点都是事实,唯一可产生疑问的是insecticide cost.如果它的降低了一点点的成本也能抵消增加的weed cost的话，结论就不对了．因此个人认为evaluate argument的关键是看 insecticide cost到底降低了多少？？其实Ｅ的意思是说，是不是绝大部门用新种子的棉农都只是比原来少用了一点点因为原来棉农门已习惯了大量使用insecticide．言外之意是：报告说只比原来少用了点点的那些棉农可能因为习惯多用了insecticide？把此题放到实际生活中就比较好理解了．因此认为是Ｅ．拙见供参考！

sammaijgd

我认为选E,

因为基于"According to farmers’ report, the amount of insecticide needed per acre to control insect pests was only slightly lower for those who tried the modified seed than for those who did not. "

关键是农民的报告可信读怎么样

我认为B扩大范围了

vancouverade

支持Ｅ，谁用谁知道................这句话放在这里挺贴切的

stevewu

以下是引用philipzhou在2005-1-7 2:59:00的发言：

还是要回到原题：the amount of insecticide needed per acre to control insect pests was only slightly lower for those who tried the modified seed than for those who did not.
是拿用新种子的和没用新种子的比较。结果是只少一点。
E.  Whether most of the farmers who tried the modified seed did so because they had previously had to use exceptionally large quantities of insecticide
没用以前是用得非常之多。exceptionally实际上也隐含了一个比较。
如果所以没用以前比其他人多很多，用了以后比其他人少一点，实际上还是节省了。

这是ets一种典型的逻辑体，关键是找到正确的比较参照物。

支持狗狗版主的說法，非常詳實合理。 針對這個意見，偶再引原文補充一下：

the amount of insecticide needed per acre to control insect pests was only slightly lower for those who tried the modified seed than for those who did not.

這段話是原文做成結論的證據，大家要注意這個證據比較的是兩群不同農夫對農藥的使用量，而不是同一群人以前和現在的比較。因為研究牽涉的樣本不同（實驗組和對照組），假設實驗組和對照組在本質上就有嚴重的差異，那麼這個證據就不足以採信，結論也會有問題。換句話說，要判斷結論是否正確，就要看兩群農夫在使用農藥的習慣上有沒有差異，也就是E所要表達的。

一點小小的看法，供大家參考~~

stevewu

再囉唆一下...

這題給偶的感覺是，它不像一般常見的"evaluate the argument"題型，反而更像assumption或weaken題。一般的evaluate the argument，似乎都是從選項中找"額外的資訊"去判斷結論是否正確，而很少評斷結論所依循的資訊是否合理。

NN們所提出B、D的理由，偶覺得也挺有道理，不過有些隔靴搔癢的感覺，不如E來得直接。