There are recent reports of apparently drastic declines in amphibian populations and of extinctions of a number of the world's endangered amphibian species. These declines, if real, may be signs of a general trend toward extinction, and many environmentalists have claimed that immediate environmental action is necessary to remedy this "amphibian crisis," which, in their view, is an indicator of general and catastrophic environmental degradation due to human activity.
To evaluate these claims, it is useful to make a preliminary distinction that is far too often ignored. A declining population should not be confused with an endangered one. An endangered population is always rare, almost always small, and, by definition, under constant threat of extinction even without a proximate cause in human activities. Its disappearance, however unfortunate, should come as no great surprise. Moreover, chance events—which may indicate nothing about the direction of trends in population size—may lead to its extinction. The probability of extinction due to such random factors depends on the population size and is independent of the prevailing direction of change in that size.
For biologists, population declines are potentially more worrisome than extinctions. Persistent declines, especially in large populations, indicate a changed ecological context. Even here, distinctions must again be made among declines that are only apparent (in the sense that they are part of habitual cycles or of normal fluctuations), declines that take a population to some lower but still acceptable level, and those that threaten extinction (e.g., by taking the number of individuals below the minimum viable population). Anecdotal reports of population decreases cannot distinguish among these possibilities, and some amphibian populations have shown strong fluctuations in the past.
It is indisputably true that there is simply not enough long-term scientific data on amphibian populations to enable researchers to identify real declines in amphibian populations. Many fairly common amphibian species declared all but extinct after severe declines in the 1950s and 1960s have subsequently recovered, and so might the apparently declining populations that have generated the current appearance of an amphibian crisis. Unfortunately, longterm data will not soon be forthcoming, and postponing environmental action while we wait for it may doom species and whole ecosystems to extinction.
Which of the following best describes the function of the sentence in the highlighted text?
To give an example of a particular kind of study
To cast doubt on an assertion made in the previous sentence
To raise an objection to a view presented in the first paragraph
To provide support for a view presented in the first paragraph
To introduce an idea that will be countered in the following paragraph
题目分析:
文章推断题:高亮的句子的作用是?
原文这句话说明,我们无法辨别两栖动物数量下降是属于哪种情况,况且数量之前一直在波动。
选项分析:
A选项:是某个研究的例子:文章没有提到某个研究。
B选项:质疑前一句的论点:前一句和这一句的态度是一样的,没有质疑态度。
C选项:正确。反对第一段的观点:第一段认为数量下降预示着一个危机,而后文说到数量下降的原因有很多,所以质疑了第一段的观点。
D选项:支持第一段的观点:错误。
E选项:介绍一个下一段会被反驳的观点:下一段说到 之前下降的数量又回升了,所以是支持这句话的。
B. previous sentence指的是前一句话,应该是previous paragraph
为什么错:没想到句子作用题还会跳那么远作用。这道题可以当作逻辑题来做,第一段说最近数量急剧下降砖家怀疑要灭绝,黄色句子说在过去数量其实是波动的,不是一直下降,说明第一段报告不全。削弱!
错选b了,没注意previous sentence,以为是previous paragraphs
高亮部分说Anecdotal reports没能分辨清楚decrease属于三种情况里的哪一种;因此明科学家们基于report得出的结论是有问题的
P1 There are recent reports of apparently drastic declines (Anecdotal reports of population decreases ) in amphibian populations and of extinctions of a number of the world's endangered amphibian species.
objection 异议,反对
一般阅读题问句子作用应该不会跳第一段那么远的感觉……
previous sentence和first paragraph没看清楚……
我也
我也....看到doubt就想直接选了完全没顾后面
这就是GMAC故意设的陷阱。一看前面,全对啊,赶紧选,结果没注意到后面带了个暗搓搓的错误的小尾巴。错误选项的前面部分甚至比正确选项的前面部分更好看,更合理,专门引诱你丢分的。
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论
The BOLD STATEMENTS is a support of the preceding and the latter sentence.
P2, P3 and P4 goes against the idea that is presented in P1 that state that the decline leads to extinction.
这句话在文中的整体作用是对上一句所提出的观点(要区分三种情况)的运用。那其作用就要看这个观点的提出是为了什么。第二段和第三段对decline和endangered关系,以及decline自身的讨论,都是为了一个目的,就是evaluate 第一段最后的观点。所以此处运用这个观点就是为了去反驳第一段结尾的那个view
第一段说报告里指出A的数量下降指示出了物种危机,而这句就说了数量下降不一定指示物种危机,有可能只是正常的数量浮动
不懂为什么b不对?
To cast doubt on an assertion made “in the previous sentence”引号里不对,不是 in the first paragraph!
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论
为啥不是b
前一句是说 必须要区分,而后面说不能被区分,而不是不需要区分。所以没有cast doubt 前句
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论