|
 
- 精华
- 0
- 积分
- 1170
- 经验
- 1170 点
- 威望
- 116 点
- 金钱
- 116 ￥
- 魅力
- 116
|
The explanation given by OG is good but a little ambiguous. The fact thatbuilding and other stuff are devastated in not in dispute. Just diagram the stimulus.
Premise：Excavation of the ancient city of Kourion on the island of Cyprus revealed a pattern of debris and collapsed buildings typical of townsdevastated by earthquakes.
Conclusion：Archaeologists have hypothesized that the destruction
was due to a major earthquake known to haveoccurred near the island in A.D. 365.
How can you just refer to the information about earthquake and then conclude that the building were devastated by an earthquake in AD365？？？？（focus on this time！）
C choice：AD 365 did experience an earthquake.But when you add this information into the argument，can the conclusion be drawn？（Why can the building be devastatedby other earthquake in other period？）
It is the time that matters theargument but not the occurrence of earthquake. Foucs on the gap on the argument。
|
|
