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.
其实就是第二种转化方法的油的原材料多,所以推出我们的油很够用。但是逻辑漏洞就是,两种转化效率不同,万一第二种原料多,但是浪费的也多,油出的少,那就不能说明我们的油够用了。所以E就补了这个漏洞。
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论