返回列表 发帖

gwd-8-38两个选项都对?

Q38:

Unless tiger hunting decreases, tigers will soon be extinct in the wild. The countries in which the tigers’ habitats are located are currently debating joint legislation that would ban tiger hunting. Thus, if these countries can successfully enforce this legislation, the survival of tigers in the wild will be ensured.

The reasoning in the argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that the argument

A. assumes without sufficient warrant that a ban on tiger hunting could be successfully enforced(无关结果)

B. considers the effects of hunting on tigers without also considering the effects of hunting on other endangered animal species(无关它因)

C. fails to take into account how often tiger hunters are unsuccessful in their attempts to kill tigers(无关它因)

D. neglects to consider the results of governmental attempts in the past to limit tiger hunting(无关背景)

E. takes the removal of an impediment to the tigers’ survival as a guarantee of their survival

这里,e无疑是最好的选项,但想探讨一下其他几个,

我认为a也可起到weaken的作用,制定了规矩,得不到有效执行,也同样达不到目的,怎样才能有效的排除a呢?

收藏 分享

A 基本上是在怀疑这句话if these countries can successfully enforce this legislation 但是注意这句话前面有个if 所以不能说它是assumes without sufficient warrant 这句话不需warrant 因为它是假定

倒是D 我觉得D也可以阿 如果那些政府以前就已经严格执行捕虎的禁令那么联合立法捕虎禁令又有什么用?

TOP

我理解d选项说忽略以前的禁猎效果,以前的效果可能有好有坏,所以即可加强也可削弱,另外,joint legislation 和以前政府的the results of governmental attempts其实是不一样的,也可以说它是无关项。

TOP

对于逻辑题,有一点很重要,就是答案不可能和原文冲突.如原文说已经执行,答案说没有执行,这个答案肯定不对.

TOP

返回列表

站长推荐 关闭


美国top10 MBA VIP申请服务

自2003年开始提供 MBA 申请服务以来,保持着90% 以上的成功率,其中Top10 MBA服务成功率更是高达95%


查看