GWD17-Q11 再讨论

xuganwilliam

Some species of Arctic birds are threatened by recent sharp increases in the population of snow geese, which breed in the Arctic and are displacing birds of less vigorous species. Although snow geese are a popular quarry for hunters in the southern regions where they winter, the hunting season ends if and when hunting has reduced the population by five
percent, according to official estimates. Clearly, dropping this restriction would allow the other species to recover

Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the argument?
A. Hunting limits for snow geese were imposed many years ago in response to a sharp decline in the population of snow geese.

B. It has been many years since the restriction led to the hunting season for snow geese being closed earlier than the scheduled date.

C. The number of snow geese taken by hunters each year has grown every year for several years.

D. As their population has increased, snow geese have recolonized wintering grounds that they had not used for several seasons.

E. In the snow goose’s winter habitats, the goose faces no significant natural predation.

大概看了前人对B的讨论，我觉得B是不对的（反而起到支持的作用）。 我们看B选项：
The restriction led to the hunting season for snow geese being closed earlier than the scheduled date。 结合题干中一句：the hunting season ends if and when hunting has reduced the population by five
percent, according to official estimates

意思：该restriction 导致了hunting season 提前被close。为什么restriction会导致hunting season提前被close呢? 应该是hunter打的太多了（如hunting season 有一个月，但是hunter们只花半个月就打完了5%，所以restriction生效，hunting season需要提前结束)。
所以B其实是支持，因为如果没有5% restriction的话, hunter们会继续打下去！

前面有贴这样理解B选项：snow geese 太少，hunter打不到5%所以只能提前结束。我觉得这样理解不对。我们看B选项：The Restriction led to hunting season being closed earlier than scheduled date.  如果snow geese 太少，还没有达到5%的限制，hunting season 不会被close反而继续开放给hunter.

此题我会选D，我觉得D选项潜在的意思是，随着snow geese数量的提高，他们去recolonize一些地方（hunter 打不到的地方）。有点牵强，但是该选项是最佳选项

一孔之见。这是我的第一帖。昨晚做了GWD-TN-14, 居然能错9个历史新高，有点郁闷。不知道其他人做这套感觉如何，我觉得比前面几套难一点。好几题有争议

欢迎拍砖！

shangcailanru

这一题并不复杂，做逻辑要抓住重点，这一题题目主要讨论restriction是否应该取消来保护其他birds，所以答案要和restriction有关系。

这样只有答案A和B,many years明显是对recently的削弱.

winnielxx

Dropping是放弃，文章结论是说放弃限制，就是可以继续hunt snow geese，减少SG的数量会让被SG威胁的other species recover。问削弱，就是说不能让other recover。



It has been many years since是很久以前的意思。It has been many years since I went to Paris. 很久以前我曾经去过巴黎，已经是历史了。所以B说，现在已经不会出现这种情况了：由于限制的原因导致hunting提前结束。就是说hunting不会因为限制的原因提前结束，而提前结束是因为SG数量减少了5%，所以说hunting不会使得SG数量减少5%à人们不喜欢打猎SG了。
        所以人们不喜欢打猎SG，即使放开限制，可以多多的捕杀SG，SG的数量不会下降，other species也因此不会recover，削弱。

shiningsmile

按照B的逻辑，我觉得应该是这样的：停止日期提前，证明已经打到了5%，由于题目中说到打geese是popular，所以证明打geese的人一直都是很多的，换句话说就是没有显著的增加，也就是说在固定一段时间内，这些人打geese的数量应该是基本相等的，时间越短，打的数量越少，进而推出现在5%在数量少要少于原来的5%，也就是geese的总数量减少，这样geese的总数量减少，其他的鸟的数量也减少，就证明geese的减少不会使其他的鸟的数量增加，就证明drop limitation没有用，结论是削弱

buaagonggan

按照B的逻辑，我觉得应该是这样的：停止日期提前，证明已经打到了5%，由于题目中说到打geese是popular，所以 ...
shiningsmile 发表于 2013-1-7 06:51

   
看答案是B，这个分析真是强大啊。。。。