In the 1980's, astronomer Bohdan Paczynski proposed a way of determining whether the enormous dark halo constituting the outermost part of the Milky Way galaxy is composed of MACHO's (massive compact halo objects), which are astronomical objects too dim to be visible. Paczynski reasoned that if MACHO's make up this halo, a MACHO would occasionally drift in front of a star in the Large Magellanic Cloud, a bright galaxy near the Milky Way. The gravity of a MACHO that had so drifted, astronomers agree, would cause the star's light rays, which would otherwise diverge, to bend together so that, as observed from Earth, the star would temporarily appear to brighten, a process known as microlensing. Because many individual stars are of intrinsically variable brightness, some astronomers have contended that the brightening of intrinsically variable stars can be mistaken for microlensing. However, whereas the different colors of light emitted by an intrinsically variable star are affected differently when the star brightens, all of a star's colors are equally affected by microlensing. Thus, if a MACHO magnifies a star's red light tenfold, it will do the same to the star's blue light and yellow light. Moreover, it is highly unlikely that a star in the Large Magellanic Cloud will undergo microlensing more than once, because the chance that a second MACHO would pass in front of exactly the same star is minuscule.
The passage is primarily concerned with
outlining reasons why a particular theory is no longer credited by some astronomers
presenting data collected by a researcher in response to some astronomers' criticism of a particular line of reasoning
explaining why a researcher proposed a particular theory and illustrating how influential that theory has been
showing how a researcher's theory has been used to settle a dispute between the researcher and some astronomers
describing a line of reasoning put forth by a researcher and addressing a contention concerning that line of reasoning
题目分析:
题目释义:
主旨题目
考点:
主旨(Main idea)
旨在考察我们对文章整体的把握程度,对文章的结构的分析能力和把控能力,以及对作者逻辑的判断。
这篇文章主要是想提出一个研究员的观点和其对提出这个观点的理由。
选项分析:
A选项:概述一个特定的原理不再被天文学家信任的原因。文中提到的天文学家的反驳是对研究员研究结果的一个加强。其后证明了天文学家的担心是多余的。
B选项:展示研究员搜集的数据作为回应一些天文学家对特定的原因的批评。研究员没有展示数据。文章中没有为回击天文学家而特意的去展示什么。
C选项:解释为什么研究员要提出一个特定的原理并说明这个原理影响有多大。文中作者并没有解释为什么要有这个原理。只是解释这个原理的内容。
D选项:展示研究员的原理是怎么解决一场研究员与天文学家的争论的。如果说文章中间部分的算作是争论的话,作者的主旨也不是展示如何解决这个争论,而是直接说出了两者的观点和理由。况且提到天文学家的理论的目的是为了更好的支持研究员提出的观点。
E选项:Correct. 描述研究员提出的一些理由和提出由这些理由提出的论点。文章开篇先提出了一些事实,继而定义“microlensing”,最后反驳不同意见从而更强调论点。
E contention:some astronomers have contended~~~
line of reasoning=argument
contention=heated disagreement
contention除了论点还有争议的意思!!!
Paczynski reasoned that..........说明前半段是原因,后面驳斥了一些对该观点的质疑
Because many individual stars are of intrinsically variable brightness, some astronomers have contended that the brightening of intrinsically variable stars can be mistaken for microlensing. 转折句,前面讲一个天文学家提议一种方法来确定某事,这里讲一些天文学家认为这种方法会被mistaken。后面再将因为……,所以这个方法并不会被mistaken。
注意转折句用的是现在时,意思是目前有些天文学家不认可这种方法,后面是作者自己的观点,分析为什么不会。这里的逻辑不同于以前时态的文章:某人提出某种方法;一些人反对;跳出来一些人辩护,主题是阐述针对某种方法的争议历史。而这篇是目前有些人反对,后面的辩护也没用说是谁提出来的辩护,那么是作者提出来的辩护。作者本身就是这个领域的研究员,写了一篇科技论文跟那些反对的天文学家battle,而不是在对普通大众普及天文历史。
不知道a line of reasoning啥意思 但是不影响做题,前边四个选项都排除了。。。
E,describing a line of reasoning put forth by a researcher and addressing a contention concerning that line of reasoning;描述了某个研究人员的一条推理路线以及解决对该推理路线的争论
整篇文章由讨论dark halo是否由macho组成开始,有人提出了一个方法(microlensing)来检验这个论题,后面详细解释了microlensing的理论基础
choice C : illustrating how influential that theory has been,并没有提到这个理论的影响力有多么大
choice D: settle a dispute between the researcher and some astronomers-> 到最后也没有settle dark halo是否由macho组成的问题
Because many individual stars are of intrinsically variable brightness, some astronomers have contended that the brightening of intrinsically variable stars can be mistaken for microlensing.
contention 争论