In setting environmental standards for industry and others to meet, it is inadvisable to require the best results that state-of-the-art technology can achieve. Current technology is able to detect and eliminate even extremely minute amounts of contaminants, but at a cost that is exorbitant relative to the improvement achieved. So it would be reasonable instead to set standards by taking into account all of the current and future risks involved.
The argument given concerning the reasonable way to set standards presupposes that
industry currently meets the standards that have been set by environmental authorities
there are effective ways to take into account all of the relevant risks posed by allowing different levels of contaminants
the only contaminants worth measuring are generated by industry
it is not costly to prevent large amounts of contaminants from entering the environment
minute amounts of some contaminants can be poisonous
方案CR题的正确选项必须提及方案的内容
结论句是一个新方案,题目问的是这个新方案的前提是什么?CQ:方案可行性
因果推理
B 证明危险可以被观测到 自然就可以set标准
D 阻止大量的污染进入环境花费不大。因果推理削弱结论。此选项与结论无关
求问: So it would be reasonable instead to set standards by taking into account all of the current and future risks involved. 最后的这个问题真的读不懂,instead在这里应该怎么理解?
instead依然是取代啊。
因此,合理地来说,应该取代当前这种把现在和未来风险都包含进去的标准设定。
不不不,这里instead可以不翻译,不是取代得意思
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论
因果推理吧,因为治理很小的污染所花费的要比收获多,所以在治理环境是不用把每个风险都考虑进去
问的是假设,也就是加强。就是b 有有效的方法可以治理每个小风险
我怎么觉得是类比推理呢?(虽然感觉没有性质上的类似,但这种推理看起来是最直接明了的)
require best results--cost-- inadvisable
all of risks considered--?---reasonable
?就应该是effective的way
可是如果是类比推理的话,答案的方向应该是相同点或者是一个另外的对象把,这个答案项没有提到吧
而且我觉得这种比较明显的题也不用那么纠结是什么推理啦
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论
这个题应该被分类为方案类吧,但是这个方案目的是什么啊,怎么读不出来。
为什么D不对呢,D可以被当做是方案的副作用:控制大量的污染也非常costly(因为没有最好的技术把tiny的污染物也给排除)。求解!