Feifei-35

lovenature

35. Because of increases in the price of oil and because of government policies promoting energy conservation, the use of oil to heat homes fell by 40 percent from 1970 to the present, and many homeowners switched to natural gas for heating. Because switching to natural gas involved investing in equipment, a significant switch back to oil in the near future is unlikely.

The prediction that ends the passage would be most seriously called into question if it were true that in the last few years.

A.        the price of natural gas to heat homes has remained constant, while the cost of equipment to heat homes with natural gas has fallen sharply.

B.        the price of home heating oil has remained constant, while the cost of equipment to heat home with natural gas has risen sharply.

C.        the cost of equipment to heat homes with natural gas has fallen sharply, while the price of home heating oil has fallen to 1970 levels.

D.       the cost of equipment to heat homes with oil has fallen sharply, while the price of heating with oil has fallen below the price of heating with natural gas

E.    the use of oil to heat homes has continued to decline, while the price of heating oil has fallen to 1970 levels

答案: D

我觉得C 对. 不改用OIL 的原因是对天然气设备的投资太大了. 不用可惜了. C 说明设备的费用大大减少, 且油价也降低了. 请指教!

dphxmg

请lawyer 和chelsea 解释

我认为，答案是A

hedonism555

the question asks you to weaken the conclusion. not support.  

so, to weaken it,  you just need to find a possible situation in which the cost of oil heating and equipment will be lower than that of natural gas heating and equipment in future, thus providing a justification for people to shift back.  D does the job.

C runs to opposite direction by showing a continuous lower cost of gas heating and an actual increased cost of oil heating ( 1970 level is 40% more than the present level)

A is the same in helping support the conclusion. ( nothing can show a lower cost of oil heating )

dphxmg

[A] significant switch back to oil in the near future is unlikely

hedonism555

right, to weaken it, the answer must provide a reason to make shifting back likely.

dphxmg

对，对，对！！！！！！！！！！！

咋糊涂了？？？？？

lovenature

hedonism555: thanks for your reply. But "the use of oil to heat homes fell by 40 percent from 1970 to the present and "actual increased cost of oil heating ( 1970 level is 40% more than the present level) "        are two totally different things.

After careful consideration, I think D is the only correct answer. When I chose C, I falsely assumed that the "the cost of equipment to heat homes with oil has fallen sharply" happend before people switched to nature gas, in which case the only obstacle for people to switched back to ill has been elimanited, therefore C should be the correct answer. But as the sentence reads that it is more likely that people had already bought the equipment when the price of it dropped, thus D should be the correct answer.

Thanks again for all your responses!

[此贴子已经被作者于2005-3-7 0:49:10编辑过]

hedonism555

yes.  1970=100%   present= 60%

julietayue

我觉得b也起到了削弱的作用.用gas的cost增加了,而用oil的cost不变.

不选b是不是因为没有d好呢?

请教

singdeath

B说用natural gas的equipment涨价了也没用，因为文中说“involved investing in equipment”，那些switch to natural gas的家庭已经装了，他再涨价也对那些家庭没有影响了，而对结论“Switching back to oil is unlikely”就不能削弱了。而且B说油价保持不变，但没说油价比天然气便宜，所以这两个条件加在一起也不能说明用油的比用天然气的好