题库搜索>逻辑CR-10983
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?
分析A选项
分析B选项
分析C选项
分析D选项
分析E选项
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。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。
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。
zhanyiq
无语,以为是spokesperson要反击,结果问的是environmentalists的发言
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
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
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
480005luq
连正确答案都无法统一的题目不值得学习
165807cdpz回复480005luq
你就是纯伞兵一个
0
0
回复
2021-10-04 21:45:41
321800m回复480005luq
6难道解析没问题?
0
0
回复
2023-01-15 22:05:53
284452gzyr
B和E到底选哪个
278948tqqk
感觉E和没说一样
跪求760
GMATCLUB上的正确答案是B
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
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.
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
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?
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
神说要有光
E中的那个those指代什么呢?
ZX-HJJ回复神说要有光
a certain group of people即文中的local residents
0
0
回复
2017-01-31 12:33:32
Kaier83
求B的翻译
diuxi123回复Kaier83
B选项 翻译:对 不利影响比经济利益更重要 这个假设提出了质疑。 与文意相反
0
0
回复
2017-01-19 21:04:43
科目:
逻辑CR
来源:
GWD
2m33s
平均耗时
43.6%
平均正确率
该题由网友2dYzpt提供
点击上传逻辑CR -11447
Sonya: The government of Copeland is raising the cigarette tax. Copeland’s cigarette prices will still be reasonably low, so cigarette consumption will probably not be affec...
逻辑CR -10983
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:...
逻辑CR -11447
Sonya: The government of Copeland is raising the cigarette tax. Copeland’s cigarette prices will still be reasonably low, so cigarette consumption will probably not be affec...
逻辑CR -10983
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:...