Scientists studying the physiology of dinosaurs have long debated whether dinosaurs were warm - or cold - blooded. Those who suspect they were warm-blooded point out that dinosaur bone is generally fibro-lamellar in nature; because fibro-lamellar bone is formed quickly, the bone fibrils, or filaments, are laid down haphazardly. Consistent with their rapid growth rate, warm-blooded animals, such as birds and mammals, tend to produce fibro-lamellar bone, whereas reptiles, which are slow-growing and cold-blooded, generally produce bone in which fibrils are laid down parallel to each other. Moreover, like the bone of birds and mammals, dinosaur bone tends to be highly vascularized, or filled with blood vessels. These characteristics, first recognized in the 1930's, were documented in the 1960's by de Ricqlès, who found highly vascularized, fibro-lamellar bone in several groups of dinosaurs. In the 1970's, Bakker cited these characteristics as evidence for the warm-bloodedness of dinosaurs. Although de Ricqlès urged caution, arguing for an intermediate type of dinosaur physiology, a generation of paleontologists has come to believe that dinosaur bone is mammalianlike.
In the 1980's, however, Bakker's contention began to be questioned, as a number of scientists found growth rings in the bones of various dinosaurs that are much like those in modern reptiles. Bone growth in reptiles is periodic in nature, producing a series of concentric rings in the bone, not unlike the growth rings of a tree. Recently, Chinsamy investigated the bones of two dinosaurs from the early Jurassic period (208-187 million years ago), and found that these bones also had growth rings; however, they were also partially fibro-lamellar in nature. Chinsamy's work raises a question central to the debate over dinosaur physiology: did dinosaurs form fibro-lamellar bone because of an innately high metabolic rate associated with warm-bloodedness or because of periods of unusually fast growth that occurred under favorable environmental conditions? (Although modern reptiles generally do not form fibro-lamellar bone, juvenile crocodiles raised under optimal environmental conditions do.) This question remains unanswered; indeed, taking all the evidence into account, one cannot make a definitive statement about dinosaur physiology on the basis of dinosaur bone. It may be that dinosaurs had an intermediate pattern of bone structure because their physiology was neither typically reptilian, mammalian, nor avian.
The author of the passage would be most likely to agree that the "caution" (highlight text) urged by de Ricqlès regarding claims about dinosaur physiology was
unjustified by the evidence available to de Ricqlès
unnecessary, given the work done by Bakker and his followers
indicative of the prevailing scientific opinion at the time
warranted, given certain subsequent findings of other scientists
influential in the recent work of Chinsamy
此讲解的内容由AI生成,还未经人工审阅,仅供参考。
正确答案是 D。de Ricql 针对关于恐龙生理的说法提出了警告,因为当时可用的证据不够令人信服。根据文章的内容,随后有一些科学家的研究表明,这一警告是合乎情理的。例如,Chinsamy 在 1980 年代的研究发现,恐龙的骨骼中存在形成径向增长的环境特征,这正是属于冷血动物,而不是像哺乳动物和鸟类那样的恒温动物。因此,答案选择 D 是正确的,因为 de Ricql 提出的警告后来被证明是合乎情理的。
warranted原本意思是保证的,这里可能解释为正确的(因为后来被其他科学家证实)
warranted, given certain subsequent findings of other scientists // 根据其他科学家后来的一些发现,这是有道理的
A. 未在文中说出明,不能想当然
C. 当时流行的观点是warmblooded,而非intermediate type
D. 注意问法:作者对于这个caution的态度是什么,答案是这个caution小心谨慎的态度是合理的,因为的确有可能是intermediate type
E. C的工作中没有提及intermediate type
问题没看懂就别想做对了。
DR的谨慎是认为恐龙可能是中间形态的,而第二段也确实给出了两种都有的证据
错因: 句子Although de Ricqlès urged caution, arguing for an intermediate type of dinosaur physiology, a generation of paleontologists has come to believe that dinosaur bone is mammalianlike.意思理解错误, 这句话的意思是尽管de Ricqlès arguing for an intermediate type of dinosaur physiology,但是其他人却has come to believe that dinosaur bone is mammalianlike.
问的是caution是怎样的,不是问其他学者的观点怎样的
warranted,恰当的
下文就有提到这样的caution是合理的,也被证据支持了
错选C,indicative of the prevailing scientific opinion at the time意思理解错误,prevailing是流行的不是超前的
D:她的理论的确被后面的发现证明是对的
E:没说他有没有影响Chinsamy的work
同把prevailing理解为超前的。。。
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论
为什么觉得d不太对呢...即使考虑了最后一段最后的点,warranted难道没有说得太重了吗?不是最后还是在说may吗,也都没有确定下来啊,我就选了a,因为觉得整篇文章到最后也没能够给这个caution进行justify,更何况这个人那个时代了,求指正哪里思考有误~
It may be that dinosaurs had an intermediate pattern of bone structure because their physiology was neither typically reptilian, mammalian, nor avian.
又是一个问法神奇的题目...
一定要仔细读阅读的题目啊!!
The author (of the passage )would be most likely to agree that the "caution"( (highlight text) urged by de Ricqlès regarding claims about dinosaur physiology )was
文章的作者一定会同意关于caution的哪一种说法
作者认为这个caution最后是被证实了的 这个caution本身是对某种观点的质疑
问作者怎么认为的 不能局限于出现caution的前后句的meaning 因为此处仅仅陈述了事实 没有表达出作者的观点 而要延续到文章结尾作者发表态度的句子上 会发现是同意持caution态度的(因为 subsequent findings of other scientists反驳的是 Bakker的观点而没有反驳Ricqlès的);C错是因为若是indicative的作用,则当时流行的观点应该是caution观点而不是原文说的mammalianlike观点
注意题目问的是,作者对caution的态度,分析题干句子成分,提出主干就是作者认为caution was 下划线处是选项内容。 本文主要讨论了恐龙是不是恒温动物的问题,之前很多证据让人们认为它是恒温动物,但是de Ricqlès提出了对这些理论和证据的caution,第二段也说道Bakker的理论也被质疑了,所以本题主要问的是作者对于de Ricqlès的caution是什么态度,作者的态度是认可呀,所以结合D答案,就是caution was warranted,这个caution是有道理的,本文的核心是恐龙是不是恒温还是有待考证的。
哪有被别的科学家给出后续发现啊?后面的不是反对他观点的吗
后面科学家反对的是B的观点。 Bakker cited these characteristics as evidence for the warm-bloodedness of dinosaurs.
但R提出一个中间状态。Although de Ricqlès urged caution, arguing for an intermediate type of dinosaur physiology。最后一段的最后一句也同意了这个观点It may be that dinosaurs had an intermediate pattern of bone structure because their physiology was neither typically reptilian, mammalian, nor avian.
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论