扫描二维码，直接登录
题库 / Prep2012-RC-71
According to a theory advanced by researcher Paul Martin, the wave of species extinctions that occurred in North America about 11,000 years ago, at the end of the Pleistocene era, can be directly attributed to the arrival of humans, i.e., the Paleoindians, who were ancestors of modern Native Americans. However, anthropologist Shepard Krech points out that large animal species vanished even in areas where there is no evidence to demonstrate that Paleoindians hunted them. Nor were extinctions confined to large animals: small animals, plants, and insects disappeared, presumably not all through human consumption. Krech also contradicts Martin's exclusion of climatic change as an explanation by asserting that widespread climatic change did indeed occur at the end of the Pleistocene. Still, Krech attributes secondary if not primary responsibility for the extinctions to the Paleoindians, arguing that humans have produced local extinctions elsewhere. But, according to historian Richard White, even the attribution of secondary responsibility may not be supported by the evidence. White observes that Martin's thesis depends on coinciding dates for the arrival of humans and the decline of large animal species, and Krech, though aware that the dates are controversial, does not challenge them; yet recent archaeological discoveries are providing evidence that the date of human arrival was much earlier than 11,000 years ago.
Which of the following, if true, would most weaken Krech's objections to Martin's theory?
Further studies showing that the climatic change that occurred at the end of the Pleistocene era was even more severe and widespread than was previously behaved
New discoveries indicating that Paleoindians made use of the small animals, plants, and insects that became extinct
Additional evidence indicating that widespread climatic change occurred not only at the end of the Pleistocene era but also in previous and subsequent eras
Researchers' discoveries that many more species became extinct in North America at the end of the Pleistocene era than was previously believed
New discoveries establishing that both the arrival of humans in North America and the wave of Pleistocene extinctions took place much earlier than 11,000 years ago
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 E。Krech 否认 Martin 的理论，基本上依赖于人类到达北美和大型动物物种消失的时间以及它们之间的关联。因此，如果有新发现表明人类到达和物种消失也都发生在 11000 年之前，这就会削弱 Krech 的反对 Martin 理论的观点，因此 E 是正确答案。
“Still, Krech attributes secondary if not primary responsibility for the extinctions to the Paleoindians, arguing that humans have produced local extinctions elsewhere.“ 这句话难道不是指K也觉得人对物种灭绝负有不可推卸的责任吗？前面K自己又说人不是主要原因
是文章有问题还是我的理解有问题，我觉得K在自相矛盾！！！！
K反对M的点在于是说M说人类捕杀动物，而K说人类并没有直接捕杀但是要付主要责任。
secondary次要责任。前面K强烈反对M对人类到来导致物种灭绝的观点，Still后面迂回折中了一下，认为人类其实也有一定原因只不过他认为不主要。
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论
rc
错选c，没有考虑清楚c的后果，只说了气候变化在各个时间都有发生，重点！-那么发生以后动物是否灭绝了呢？c并没有进一步阐述，证明不足；
b仔细读句子，分析句子结构small animals, plants, and insects disappeared, presumably（大概） not all through human consumption；说的是New discoveries indicating that Paleoindians made use of the small animals, plants, and insects （that became extinct）就是灭绝的小动物都是被p使用和利用的，支持了人类导致动物灭绝
文章：small animals, plants, and insects disappeared, presumably not all through human consumption。 并不都是
B：Paleoindians made use of the small animals, plants, and insects that became extinct 是人的使用导致的，削弱
文章： widespread climatic change did indeed occur at the end of the Pleistocene 发生在end
C：climatic change occurred not only at the end of the Pleistocene era but also in previous and subsequent eras。 除了end，在之前也发生了，以及其他地区。 并没有削弱，反倒是一种加强了
Which of the following, if true, would most weaken Krech's objections to Martin's theory?
C的问题是，选项想用“同因反果”来削弱K的观点，即，P era有climatic change, 有灭绝，其他era也有climatic change, 但是却没有灭绝，所以climatic change不是导致灭绝的原因。但是选项中并没有提到其他era没有灭绝这件事，这是我们自己脑补的事实，即选项中并没有提供“果”，所以错
有关B的argument是：“Nor were extinctions confined to large animals: small animals, plants, and insects disappeared, presumably not all through human consumption.”意思是说，不光大动物灭绝了，小动物和植物昆虫也灭绝了，不可能人类还consume小动物啥的吧（所以不可能是human consumption导致大动物灭绝）。所以B说人类确实use了这些小动物，就是一个很直接的削弱。
又是一道逻辑题。原文说，灭绝的不仅限于大型动物，还有小型动物、植物和昆虫都灭绝了，（K认为）这些动植物灭绝又不是全都由人类消耗导致的；
B项说，新发现表明人类确实消耗了那些已经灭绝的blabla
错选C：文章说的是Krech also contradicts Martin's exclusion of climatic change as an explanation by asserting that widespread climatic change did indeed occur at the end of the Pleistocene.就是说K认为M不该排除天气变化是灭绝的一个原因，因为K认为波及范围广的天气变化确实在end of the P的时候发生了。
那么答案说Additional evidence indicating that widespread climatic change occurred not only at the end of the Pleistocene era but also in previous and subsequent eras. 其它时候有没有发生和end的时候有没有发生无关。
C P时代有可能因气候变化导致灭绝潮 没说P时代之前没有灭绝潮
M持有两个观点：人类使动作灭绝；与天气无关；K认为在导致动物灭绝的原因里，人类连第二都排不上，天气有影响。
B，支持了其第一个观点。是人类导致动物灭绝。
C，说了其他时代，但是文章说的是P时代有个灭绝潮，没有说其他时代没有灭绝
人名/时间/地点纷繁复杂的文章，一定要把节点标出，根据节点梳理叙述内容。漏记了最一开始就是M的观点。
k认为人类并不是主要原因，因为灭绝的不仅有人类consume的大型猎物，还有人类不consume的小动物，现在给出人类consume小动物的证据，即可证明
C选项在灭绝前中后都有气候变化的发生，说明气候变化并没有对其造成什么影响
M说灭绝是人导致的
K说人不是主要原因
选项只要说人导致动物灭绝就可以了
C的狀況不就是氣候變遷不是在end of the era才發生的，那之前發生的時候沒有滅絕，證明了氣候變遷不是滅絕的原因吧？為什麼不能weaken?
K的观点是在end of the era发生的气候变化导致灭绝，这个逻辑中不包含其他时间，所以其他时间有没有都无关，只要在K说的这个时间气候变化确实发生， 就是加强。
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论
逻辑题：没有考虑清楚c的后果，只说了气候变化在各个时间都有发生，重点！-那么发生以后动物是否灭绝了呢？c并没有进一步阐述，证明不足；（提到其他时期也有，但没说其他时期的结果是什么）
错选C：文章说的是Krech also contradicts Martin's exclusion of climatic change as an explanation by asserting that widespread climatic change did indeed occur at the end of the Pleistocene.就是说K认为M不该排除天气变化是灭绝的一个原因，因为K认为波及范围广的天气变化确实在end of the P的时候发生了。
那么答案说Additional evidence indicating that widespread climatic change occurred not only at the end of the Pleistocene era but also in previous and subsequent eras. 其它时候有没有发生和end的时候有没有发生无关。
文章：small animals, plants, and insects disappeared, presumably not all through human consumption。 并不都是
B：Paleoindians made use of the small animals, plants, and insects that became extinct 是人的使用导致的，削弱
我脑补了，如果在这之前就有气候变化，那么动物早该灭绝了。。。TAT
原文small animals, plants, and insects disappeared, presumably not all through human consumption
不太懂，选的e，因为我觉得e可以反对K的“气候变化导致大灭绝”的观点，
而c，原文说的是小型动物等的灭绝不全是因为人类，这和c的人类有使用过它们并不矛盾啊？要是说大量使用我觉得选c绝对没有毛病，可它没说
K认为在导致动物灭绝的原因里，人类的原因不reasonable，plus天气也有影响。
B，支持了其第一个观点。是人类导致动物灭绝。
"However, anthropologist Shepard Krech points out that large animal species vanished even in areas where there is no evidence to demonstrate that Paleoindians hunted them. Nor were extinctions confined to large animals: small animals, plants, and insects disappeared, presumably not all through human consumption."
C 气候变化不仅发生在P末期还发生在其他时代，未说明其他时代有发生类似的灭绝。
C P时代有可能因气候变化导致灭绝潮 没说P时代之前没有灭绝潮
C选项说了其他时代，但是文章没有说其他时代没有灭绝，这个是自己多想了以为其他时代没有灭绝
你说得最对
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论