标题: OG-186 [打印本页]
作者: joanjoans 时间: 2009-4-1 20:51 标题: OG-186
186.
Offshore oil-drilling operations entail an unavoidable risk of an oil spill, but importing oil on
tankers presently entails an even greater such risk per barrel of oil. Therefore, if we are to
reduce the risk of an oil spill without curtailing our use of oil, we must invest more in offshore
operations and import less oil on tankers.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument above?
(A) Tankers can easily be redesigned so that their use entails less risk of an oil spill.
(B) Oil spills caused by tankers have generally been more serious than those caused by
offshore operations.
(C) The impact of offshore operations on the environment can be controlled by careful
management.
(D) Offshore operations usually damage the ocean floor, but tankers rarely cause such
damage.
(E) Importing oil on tankers is currently less expensive than drilling for it offshore.
187.
答案是A，我觉得这个答案有点古怪啊？D不是更好吗？也提到了operation risk啊？
谢谢。
作者: daizexia90 时间: 2009-4-2 07:12
我也觉得答案有点古怪,因为我第一意识也是选D的.但是如果按照D的推理,一个是说海底的破坏和一个是海水表面的破坏,并没有说哪个造成的危害更严重,而我们自己的主观是认为海底的破坏严重.实际上文中并没有说哪个更严重.
所以应该还是A对.
作者: tomrchu 时间: 2009-4-2 17:01
D irrelevant
damage the ocean floor和risk of oil spill没有关系。
题目要求是if we are to reduce the risk of an oil spill
作者: joanjoans 时间: 2009-4-3 17:11
我现在能理解D为何不对了，可是A为何是对的啊？谢谢。
作者: tomrchu 时间: 2009-4-4 19:41
文中说reduce the risk of an oil spill，我们必须more offshore, less
tankers因为tanker的risk比offshore大。
A选项说redesign tanker可以减少risk，则通过redesign也可以reduce risk，不是
must more offshore less tankers。
| 欢迎光临 国际顶尖MBA申请交流平台--TOPWAY MBA (http://forum.topway.org/) |
Powered by Discuz! 7.2 |