Board logo

标题: 請教GWD7-Q5,謝謝 [打印本页]

作者: willgoeu    时间: 2012-8-12 07:18     标题: 請教GWD7-Q5,謝謝

GWD7-Q5:

Exposure
to certain chemicals commonly used in elementary schools as cleaners or pesticides
causes allergic reactions in some children.
Elementary school nurses in Renston report that the proportion of
schoolchildren sent to them for treatment of allergic reactions to those
chemicals has increased significantly over the past ten years.
Therefore, either Renston’s schoolchildren
have been exposed to greater quantities of the chemicals, or they are more
sensitive to them than schoolchildren were ten years ago.


Which
of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?


A     The number of
     school nurses employed by Renston’s elementary schools has not decreased
     over the past ten years.



B     Children who are
     allergic to the chemicals are no more likely than other children to have
     allergies to other substances.



C     Children who
     have allergic reactions to the chemicals are not more likely to be sent to
     a school nurse now than they were ten years ago.



D     The chemicals
     are not commonly used as cleaners or pesticides in houses and apartment
     buildings in Renston.



E      Children
     attending elementary school do not make up a larger proportion of
     Renston’s population now than they did ten years ago.    這題答案是C,請問B錯在哪?C又對在哪?


作者: haoyuejayer    时间: 2012-8-12 20:36

B,原题一直在说某种allergy,B中说的allergies to other substances

是irrelavent (况且也不是assumption,对其他物质的allergy对the

proportion of schoolchildren sent to them for treatment of allergic

reactions to THOSE chemicals 没有影响)

C对的原因是,原题的argument是送医院的比例上升了,所以要不exposure更

大,要不学生现在变得更敏感了。要结论成立,那么“需要送医院”的定义

就得consistent,如果现在不管情况如何,只要学生有一点点状况都会被送

到医院(而以前要情况严重到某个程度才会被送医院),那么原题的

argument就不成立了。
作者: willgoeu    时间: 2012-8-13 06:25

謝謝回應,我懂了
作者: xinxiangwei    时间: 2012-8-15 06:18

neo1001的解释好像说反了,C说 are not more likely to be sent to a school nurse now than they were ten years ago
作者: elsachialee    时间: 2012-8-16 20:15

为什么不选E??
作者: mousemic    时间: 2012-8-18 09:37

C:送去校医院的频率下降,但过敏总人数依然上升,可以说明therefore之后的结论。

E:  是将儿童人口与该地的总人口数的比例下降,不能说明儿童绝对数值是上升还是下降,因此说明不了结论。
如果E项能说明儿童总人数是下降的,那么过敏总人数反而多,则也能说明结论的




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