In the past, most children who went sledding in the winter snow in Verland used wooden sleds with runners and steering bars. Ten years ago, smooth plastic sleds became popular; they go faster than wooden sleds but are harder to steer and slow. The concern that plastic sleds are more dangerous is clearly borne out by the fact that the number of children injured while sledding was much higher last winter than it was ten years ago.
Which of the following, if true in Verland, most seriously undermines the force of the evidence cited?
In the past, most children who went sledding in the winter snow in Verland used wooden sleds with runners and steering bars. Ten years ago, smooth plastic sleds became popular; they go faster than wooden sleds but are harder to steer and slow. The concern that plastic sleds are more dangerous is clearly borne out by the fact that the number of children injured while sledding was much higher last winter than it was ten years ago.
Which of the following, if true in Verland, most seriously undermines the force of the evidence cited?
AA few children still use traditional wooden sleds.
BVery few children wear any kind of protective gear, such as helmets, while sledding.
CPlastic sleds can be used in a much wider variety of snow conditions than wooden sleds can.
DMost sledding injuries occur when a sled collides with a tree, a rock, or, another sled.
EBecause the traditional wooden sled can carry more than one rider, an accident involving a wooden sled can result in several children being injured.
这题我觉得应该是 果因. 前提(果): plastic sleds are more dangerous. 结论(因): the number of children injured while sledding was much higher last winter than it was ten years ago.
答案C的话是 解释果. 其它选项都不能解释果. 希望可以帮到你~
joanna5200 发表于 2013-11-15 09:14
恩恩 more dangerous 确实是结果,但我觉得它应该是结论吧,因为前提发生的时间明显是先有了儿童injure的 ...
对啊, more dangerous是结果,但不是结论,结论是解释 more dangerous,所以是果因。前提(果): plastic sleds are more dangerous. 结论(因): the number of children injured while sledding was much higher last winter than it was ten years ago.
原文最后一句的结论是 塑料雪橇更危险,支持他的证据是 去年冬天在滑雪时受伤的小孩数量比十年前更多。
注意原文说的是总的受伤的人数增多了,显然玩的人多,受伤的人就多,原文又说塑料雪橇越来越popular,于是
假设1 in the past,木板雪橇玩家100/20,塑料玩家10/1;10年前,木板雪橇120/24,塑料玩家200/20;去年冬天,木板雪橇150/30,塑料雪橇290/29
玩木板雪橇受伤/玩木板雪橇的人=20%,玩塑料雪橇受伤/玩塑料雪橇的人=10%,
假设2 in the past,木板雪橇玩家100/10,塑料玩家10/2;10年前,木板雪橇120/12,塑料玩家200/40;去年冬天,木板雪橇150/15,塑料雪橇290/58
玩木板雪橇受伤/玩木板雪橇的人=10%,玩塑料雪橇受伤/玩塑料雪橇的人=20%,
去年冬天受伤的人多,侧面也就是说玩塑料雪橇受伤的人多,这证明了塑料雪橇危险,显然结论是一个比例问题,到底哪个更危险从假设1和假设2可见,根本不好判断,
问题问的是哪个选项削弱证据,所以要围绕证据思考,即滑雪受伤的人多,甚至塑料雪橇受伤的人多,并不能证明塑料雪橇更危险,而不是去证明塑料雪橇没有危险。
C说 塑料雪橇比木质雪橇用途更广泛,即塑料雪橇遇到的雪况snow conditions复杂,掌控又较难,于是发生事故多,得出结论说塑料雪橇更危险,这也就是通过他因进行了解释。
E说木头的载人数更多,言外之意木板受伤多,那也就是木板出事故的次数少,但这并不能说明木板更安全,塑料更危险,因为最终判断是否危险是受伤人数/玩家,不能说飞机每年只出1次事故每次死200人,摩托车每年出180次事故每次死1人,就说飞机很安全。。。
就算木板会让很多小孩受伤,这里没有塑料与木板的比较,于是之前所做的两种假设依然存在:假设1,塑料的受伤比例少于木板,这样木板反而更危险,直接推翻了结论,导致无关,假设2,塑料的受伤比例多于木板,这样证明塑料更危险,加强了结论,所以E并没有weaken到
注意:在证据中 以时间点来代表不同种类雪橇,last winter 几乎是塑料的,ten years ago 几乎是木制的。 简单做法: 原文基于对两个滑雪板的比较,那么无论是支持或是驳斥“塑料滑雪板”的evidence,都必须包含二者的比较,而不是只提到其中一个或提到对二者影响相同的条件。