Environmentalist: The use of snowmobiles in the vast park north of Milville create sun acceptable levels of air pollution答案解析-雷哥GMAT

逻辑CR-10983 【难度:700-730】

报告题目错误

请选择错误类型：

请描述一下这个错误：

取消

Environmentalist: The use of snowmobiles in the vast park north of Milville create sun acceptable levels of air pollution and should be banned.

Milville business spokesperson: Snowmobiling brings many out-of-towners to Milville in winter months, to the great financial benefit of many local residents. So, economics dictate that we put up with the pollution.

Environmentalist: I disagree: A great many cross-country skiers are now kept from visiting Milville by the noise and pollution that snowmobiles generate.

Environmentalist responds to the business spokesperson by doing which of the following?

A

Challenging an assumption that certain desirable outcome can derive from only one set of circumstances
分析A选项
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

B

Challenging an assumption that certain desirable outcome is outweighed by negative aspects associated with producing that outcome
分析B选项
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

C

Maintaining that the benefit that the spokesperson desires could be achieved in greater degree by a different means
分析C选项
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

D

Claiming that the spokesperson is deliberately misrepresenting the environmentalist’s position in order to be better able to attack it
分析D选项
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

E

Denying that an effect that the spokesperson presents as having benefited a certain group of people actually benefited those people
分析E选项
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

网友解析

我有更好的解析

暂无雷哥网文字解析

当前版本由 01**** 更新于2016-01-15 09:50:07 感谢由 01**** 对此题目的解答所做出的贡献。

A的only不对。spokesperson说Snowmobiling带来很多人。环境学家说污染让很多人不敢来。环境学家的目的很显然是否定Snowmobiling带来很多人。从而否定给当地居民带来经济利益。即否定这个效果。所以E是合适的，B反了。E：否认发言人认为会为某特定人群带来好处的那种努力其实不会使那群人受益。

当前版本由斯德哥尔摩zzzzzzz 更新于2019-01-08 15:04:44 感谢由斯德哥尔摩zzzzzzz 对此题目的解答所做出的贡献。

B 是说：一个理想的结果的负面影响大于正面影响。（环境学家反驳的是这个好的影响—（游客被吸引，经济上涨），也许根本不会出现）所以和正面负面影响没关系
E：those people 指的是文中提到的many local residents.换句话说就是游客因为污染不会来，所以游客越来越多，经济越来越好的这个benefit就不会出现。符合原文逻辑。

题目讨论（14条评论）

提交

zhanyiq

无语，以为是spokesperson要反击，结果问的是environmentalists的发言

0 回复 2021-11-01 18:22:42

半山

B的错误在于assumption，不能说是质疑了这种假设（什么样的假设？“负面因素带来的影响超过了好的一方面”）。“负面因素带来的影响超过了好的一方面”不是Environmentalist所质疑的内容，而是他自己提出来的内容，如果要用“质疑（challenge）”这个动词，后面接的必须是spokesperson观点的内容

0 回复 2021-08-18 11:57:17

Cheryl

E：air pollution---ban
M：financial benefit&recreation---put up pollu---不该ban
E：no financial benefit---skiers
B：通过提出一些好的结果被坏的影响抵消了来质疑假设，好的影响被抵消这个不是前提假设，是直接说出来的；
E：否认了S说的对一些人好的结果实际上真的对那些人好，这个people就是收到benefit的人，S以为这些人能收到更多钱，实际收不到，所以否认了这一点，正确

0 回复 2021-07-15 09:11:54

170605ehvb

This answer tells us that the environmentalist is challenging the business spokesperson's assumption that a certain desirable outcome (maybe stopping the pollution) is outweighed by (not as good as) negative aspects associated with producing that outcome (maybe the lost snowmobile revenue). This fits exactly what we want because the environmentalist is saying that the business spokesperson is wrong for thinking that we shouldn't clean up pollution because of the money. 
B是对的

0 回复 2021-05-25 21:21:31

480005luq

连正确答案都无法统一的题目不值得学习

2 0 回复 2021-05-23 22:26:12
165807cdpz回复480005luq

你就是纯伞兵一个

0 0 回复 2021-10-04 21:45:41

284452gzyr

B和E到底选哪个

0 0 回复 2020-10-19 15:07:30

278948tqqk

感觉E和没说一样

1 0 回复 2020-03-30 23:18:19

跪求760

GMATCLUB上的正确答案是B

1 1 回复 2019-11-18 10:11:48

otter

Challenging an assumption (that certain desirable outcome is outweighed by negative aspects associated with producing that outcome)
挑战一种假设（随之而来的负面效应胜过了正面效应）。
ls说题目中没有正面效应，我认为是错误的。
正面效应指的是：snowmobiles吸引外资，带来great financial benefit，这些benefit可以compensate pollution
负面效应指的是：snowmobiles造成的noise and pollution，实际上导致了外资不愿意进驻M。
负面效应胜过了正面效应正是environmentalist 反驳spokesperson的方法，而B选项前面还有challenging an assumption，恰好说反了

0 回复 2019-05-20 01:33:08

DorothyDai

可以把out-of-towners和cross country skiers归为一类人，也就是environmentalist在原argument上反对可以为冬季外来人带来的benefits.

0 回复 2019-02-10 14:04:20

peterbearpan

E选项很绕，但其实完全可以简化为denying that an effect actually benefited those ppl;如果选项看得晕，恐怕只能靠排除法

0 回复 2019-01-29 17:08:39

神说要有光

E最后说事实上有利于什么人在反驳中没有提到啊？

0 0 回复 2016-11-09 15:03:39
mengdan回复神说要有光

否认了发言人的有利于当地居民这个效果是真的有益，就是说环境学家说bsm说的好处是不存在的，是很合理的反驳

0 0 回复 2017-12-27 18:28:47