In 1971 researchers hoping to predict earthquakes in the short term by identifying precursory phenomena (those that occur a few days before large quakes but not otherwise) turned their attention to changes in seismic waves that had been detected prior to earthquakes. An explanation for such changes was offered by "dilatancy theory," based on a well-known phenomenon observed in rocks in the laboratory: as stress builds, microfractures in rock close, decreasing the rock's volume. But as stress continues to increase, the rock begins to crack and expand in volume, allowing groundwater to seep in, weakening the rock. According to this theory, such effects could lead to several precursory phenomena in the field, including a change in the velocity of seismic waves, and an increase in small, nearby tremors.
Researchers initially reported success in identifying these possible precursors, but subsequent analyses of their data proved disheartening. Seismic waves with unusual velocities were recorded before some earthquakes, but while the historical record confirms that most large earthquakes are preceded by minor tremors, these foreshocks indicate nothing about the magnitude of an impending quake and are indistinguishable from other minor tremors that occur without large earthquakes.
In the 1980s, some researchers turned their efforts from short-term to long-term prediction. Noting that earthquakes tend to occur repeatedly in certain regions, Lindh and Baker attempted to identify patterns of recurrence, or earthquake cycles, on which to base predictions. In a study of earthquake-prone sites along the San Andreas Fault, they determined that quakes occurred at intervals of approximately 22 years near one site and concluded that there was a 95 percent probability of an earthquake in that area by 1992. The earthquake did not occur within the time frame predicted, however.
Evidence against the kind of regular earthquake cycles that Lindh and Baker tried to establish has come from a relatively new field, paleoseismology. Paleoseismologists have unearthed and dated geological features such as fault scarps that were caused by earthquakes thousands of years ago. They have determined that the average interval between ten earthquakes that took place at one site along the San Andreas Fault in the past two millennia was 132 years, but individual intervals ranged greatly, from 44 to 332 years.
The author implies which of the following about the ability of the researchers mentioned in the highlighted text to predict earthquakes?
They can identify when an earthquake is likely to occur but not how large it will be.
They can identify the regions where earthquakes are likely to occur but not when they will occur.
They are unable to determine either the time or the place that earthquakes are likely to occur.
They are likely to be more accurate at short-term earthquake prediction than at long-term earthquake prediction.
They can determine the regions where earthquakes have occurred in the past but not the regions where they are likely to occur in the future.
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 A。
答案A正确,因为文章中提到了关于研究人员对地震进行预测的能力,他们可以通过识别特征来确定地震发生的可能性但不能确定地震的规模。在文章中,作者强调了研究人员提出的可能的前兆,包括地震波的速度变化和小的地震震动的增加。然而,历史记录表明,大多数大地震之前都会有小地震震动,但这些留下来的小地震震动并没有指示即将发生的地震的大小。因此,答案A是正确的。
排除法吧 不要硬选
these foreshocks indicate nothing about the magnitude of an impending quake and are indistinguishable from other minor tremors that occur without large earthquakes.
without large earthquakes可以有两种解释,一种是小地震,一种是没有地震。既然后面可能没有地震,那就不能预测地震发生的时间了。因为即使有tremor,也可能没地震。这个招就废了。
these foreshocks indicate nothing about the magnitude of an impending quake and are indistinguishable from other minor tremors that occur without large earthquakes. 错选了A. 感觉这题还是用排除法更好一些,直接做我怎么也不敢选C
E:和region无关,只是在讲发生的预兆sign
Most large is followed by signs, while signs don't really lead to an earthquake. Only C is right.
Devilish Question (Only to do this if you target V49-51)
错的很惨;我以为选A 很稳;毕竟有个large;