求教狒狒逻辑21

Maybejessica

21. Historian: We can learn about the medical history of individuals through chemical analysis of their hair. It is likely, for example, that Isaac Newton’s psychological problems were due to mercury poisoning; traces of mercury were found in his hair. Analysis is now being done on a lock of Beethoven’s hair. Although no convincing argument has shown that Beethoven ever had a venereal disease, some people hypothesize that venereal disease caused his deafness. Since mercury was commonly ingested in Beethoven’s time to treat venereal disease, if researchers find a trace of mercury in his hair, we can conclude that this hypothesis is correct.

Which one of the following is an assumption on which the historian’s argument depends?

(A) None of the mercury introduced into the body can be eliminated.

(B) Some people in Beethoven’s time did not ingest mercury.

(C) Mercury is an effective treatment for venereal disease.

(D) Mercury poisoning can cause deafness in people with venereal disease.

(E) Beethoven suffered from psychological problems of the same severity as Newton’s.答案是B,不是很理解。。。。。。

Calcium99

……我开始也云里雾里的。怎么不直接就说没病的人不会ingest？非要用个some搞得那么牵强……

qujundi

我感觉难点在于对SOME的理解 总感觉给人一种“一些”人是不吃水银的，就好像大部分人都吃水银了~直观上讲应该是得病的人是少数，如果改成most of the people或许就没那么难理解了~

Maybejessica

谢谢楼上的

zhengqingku

我第一感觉是需要 only venereal disease will be treated by

mercury in Beethoven’s time 这个假设
觉得B很莫名其妙，不过其他选项也是不对的。。。看了狒狒详解的

解释，觉得还蛮有道理的。。就是说在这个时代不能所有人都ingest

mercury，如果所有人都ingest，即没有病的也ingest的话，贝多芬

ingest了就不能证明他有病。。。其实想想这个假设是从属于only

venereal disease will be treated by mercury in Beethoven’s

time 这个假设的，都是想说只有有病的才ingest，没病的就不会

ingest