国际顶尖MBA申请交流平台--TOPWAY MBA

标题: OG12 91请教各位！ [打印本页]

作者: napoleon8424 时间: 2010-10-5 07:09 标题: OG12 91请教各位！

91. Environmentalist: The commissioner of the Fish and

Game Authority would have the public believe that

increases in the number of marine fish caught

demonstrate that this resource is no longer

endangered. This is a specious argument, as unsound

as it would be to assert that the ever-increasing rate at

which rain forests are being cut down demonstrates a

lack of danger to that resource. The real cause of the

increased fish-catch is a greater efficiency in using

technologies that deplete resources.

The environmentalist’s statements, if true, best

support which of the following as a conclusion?

(A) The use of technology is the reason for the

increasing encroachment of people on nature.

(B) It is possible to determine how many fish are in

the sea in some way other than by catching fish.

(C) The proportion of marine fish that are caught is

as high as the proportion of rain forest trees

that are cut down each year.

(D) Modern technologies waste resources by

catching inedible fish.

(E) Marine fish continue to be an endangered

resource.

答案为E，我选了B

问题是，E的结论跳跃得也太大了，原题只反映了通过这种方法来判断不合理，并没有说这种鱼endangered了啊。请NN指教！

作者: dontwannalos 时间: 2010-10-5 20:40

不知道对不对？不是NN囧

这个题目问的是原文给的条件支持下列哪个结论？选项是结论不是支持型的题目
原文：说了一大堆就说这种方法来判断不合理因此开始说的那个The commissioner of the Fish and game authority
给出的观点就是不正确的
这个commissioner的观点是：the resource is no longer endangered
环境学家认为鱼is endangered

作者: dongstar 时间: 2010-10-6 06:36

我想问的是题目中有一句ever-increasing rate at

which rain forests are being cut down demonstrates a

lack of danger to that resource.，就是说lack of danger to that resource意味着鱼不endanger，全文就变成了抓鱼，灭绝，雨林，不灭绝，技术，灭绝，这样环环相绕最后得出的结论是“继续灭绝”，有点不解。请指教。

作者: liexodus 时间: 2010-10-6 20:21

一楼的回答很有道理

2 楼的
原文说环境学家认为commissioner 说鱼没减少就像说热带雨林没减少一样没有道理
雨林的例子是个反例
得出结论鱼会减少

作者: zengzihao 时间: 2010-10-7 06:33

这道题选E的原因是因为public believe，鱼不会减少，而事实证明鱼存量受到了威胁，至于楼主的B答案，我不知道从哪里可以得出，应该是无关选项吧

作者: windows10 时间: 2010-10-7 20:41

题干的公共元素是捕鱼的增加。commissioner的观点是捕鱼的增加证明鱼的资源不受威胁。而环境专家举热带雨林的例子来反对commissioner的观点。则题干观点变成：捕鱼的增加证明鱼的资源受威胁。然后下一句说捕鱼的增加的原因是技术的使用的效益，而这样的效益会耗尽资源。

于是技术，捕鱼的增加，鱼的资源受威胁。最后选E。

虽然明白了E是对的，但是A具体错哪了不知道~~~~求等NN指教啊~~！！

作者: dongstar 时间: 2010-10-8 06:37

就像前面说的，这题问的是原文可以推出下面哪个。
A选项说人们用技术是破坏自然的原因，你能仅从用技术把鱼捕了这件事就说明所有的环境破坏都因为技术？以偏概全吧。

不过我觉得如果这是加强题的话，A应该就算一种加强。不知道是不是这样？？期待高人指点！

作者: happydw 时间: 2010-10-9 19:59

我觉得A好像有点以偏概全了，直接由个别例子就推出了这样的结论。但我们并不知道这样的例子是否足够有代表性。

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