Most geologists believe oil results from chemical transformations of hydrocarbons derived from organisms buried under ancient seas. Suppose, instead, that oil actually results from bacterial action on other complex hydrocarbons that are trapped within the earth. As is well known, the volume of these hydrocarbons exceeds that of buried organisms. Therefore, our oil reserves would be greater than most geologists believe.
Which of the following, if true, gives the strongest support to the argument above about our oil reserves?
Most geologists think optimistically about the earth’s reserves of oil.
Most geologists have performed accurate chemical analyses on previously discovered oil reserves.
Ancient seas are buried within the earth at many places where fossils are abundant.
The only bacteria yet found in oil reserves could have leaked down drill holes from surface contaminants.
Chemical transformations reduce the volume of buried hydrocarbons derived from organisms by roughly the same proportion as bacterial action reduces the volume of other complex hydrocarbons.
这道题看了半天也没懂。第一句话说第一种油转化的方法,有机体产生碳水化合物再经过化学转化而来。第二句说第二种方法,细菌分解碳水化合物而来。第三句说的是,众所周知,碳水化合物的量超过了有机体的量,意思是--第二种方法的原料比第一种方法多。最后一句,友储备要比第一种方法来的多。答案,两种方法转化消耗原材料比例相同。
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论