国际顶尖MBA申请交流平台--TOPWAY MBA

标题: [求助]og-203 [打印本页]

作者: dontwannalos 时间: 2010-5-29 07:32 标题: [求助]og-203

203.
Journalist: In physics journals, the number of articles reporting the results of experiments involving particle accelerators was lower last year than it had
been in previous years. Several of the particle accelerators at major research institutions were out of service the year before last for repairs, so it is likely
that the low number of articles was due to the decline in availability of
particle accelerators.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the journalist’s argument?
(A) Every article based on experiments with particle accelerators that
was submitted for publication last year actually was published.
(B) The average time scientists must wait for access to a
particle accelerator has declined over the last several years.
(C) The number of physics journals was the same last year
as in previous years.
(D) Particle accelerators can be used for more than one
group of experiments in any given year.
(E) Recent changes in the editorial policies of several physics
journals have decreased the likelihood that articles concerning
particle-accelerator research will be accepted for publication.

choice A is incorrect because it implies that there was indeed a decline in the number of articles submitted and so supports the journalist's explanation.

choice B is incorrect since the fact that scientists have to wait for access implies that the accelerators continue to be fully used, thereby lending support to the idea that it is the reduced number of accelerators that led to a reduced number of articles. since a decline in the number of physics journals would be one alternative explanation for the decline in the number of articles published, and choices c rules out that alternative explanation, it somewhat supports the explanation the journalist offers.

Choice D does not weaken the journalist's argument: even if accelerators can be used for several experiments, a reduction in the number of accelerators is likely to lead to a reduction in the number of experiments, and hence of articles.

能不能帮助把文章的大意讲一下,而且我对ETS的解释也很不理解,尤其是对A 和B 的解释,请高手指点.谢谢

作者: shaoyipeng 时间: 2010-5-29 22:24

判断是用加速器做实验而出的论文少了，去年有些加速器不能用，不能用是论文少的原因。找削弱：

(A) Every article based on experiments with particle accelerators that
was submitted for publication last year actually was published.每个靠加速器做的实验的论文都发表了（但是还是比原来少了）：没有存在用加速器做实验的论文没有发表的情况－－>加速器数量减少可能影响这类论文发表数量。

(B) The average time scientists must wait for access to a
particle accelerator has declined over the last several years.等候用加速器的时间减少了（同时说明：加速器还是不够用，因为还要等.如果加速器没有减少，肯定立马就有人要用来做实验，然后出论文。）这个选项实在是干扰的厉害。

作者: dontwannalos 时间: 2010-5-30 07:12

谢谢解释的非常明白.

现在A和B明白了,正确答案E又不明白了,能否再给解释一次.

作者: sunny9653 时间: 2010-5-31 06:40

判断是用加速器做实验而出的论文少了，去年有些加速器不能用，不能用是论文少的原因。找削弱：

(A) Ever ...
shaoyipeng 发表于 2010-5-29 22:24

这种说法太勉强，既然前面的人等的时间更长都出了那么多论文了，为什么等的时间少了，出的论文反倒少了？应该出更多的论文，这说明应该有其他原因导致论文减少了，起码这能说明加速器维修不是造成论文减少的原因！OG11的解释也说了等待的时间短了那就有更多的论文，而不是更少。我觉得只是一个UNDERMINE。尽管没有E选项更符合GMAT的思路。

作者: mingzhu99 时间: 2010-6-1 06:42

觉得B可以排除，但排除理由不是OG给出的理由，OG地解释实际上偏离了正确的方向。
这里的核心average over the last several years,实际上应该着这么回事：过去几年平均的等待时间减少，并不能说明最近两年（从加速器out of service算起）的等待时间比以前减少了，也就不能说明加速器更available了，上述的歧义也就排除了。

作者: tomchengs 时间: 2010-6-2 06:42

不同意。我觉得OG的的是对的。

有两个概念，加速器的数量和加速器的使用效率。题目的论点是文章减少的原因是数量的减少。而B选项是说使用效率没有低，也就是排除了使用效率这个它因，所以支持了题目的论点。

欢迎光临国际顶尖MBA申请交流平台--TOPWAY MBA (http://forum.topway.org/forum/)