Astronomer: Observations of the Shoemaker-Levi comet on its collision course with Jupiter showed that the comet broke into fragments before entering Jupiter's atmosphere in 1994, but they did not show how big those fragments were. In hopes of gaining some indication of the fragments' size, astronomers studied spectrographic analyses of Jupiter's outer atmosphere. These analyses revealed unprecedented traces of sulfur after the fragments' entry. The fragments themselves almost certainly contained no sulfur, but many astronomers believe that the cloud layer below Jupiter's outer atmosphere does contain sulfur. Since sulfur would have seeped into the outer atmosphere if comet fragments had penetrated this cloud layer, it is likely that some of the fragments were at least large enough to have passed through Jupiter's outer atmosphere without being burned up.
In the astronomer's argument, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?
The first presents a circumstance for which the astronomer offers an explanation; the second is part of that explanation.
The first acknowledges a consideration that weighs against the conclusion of the argument; the second is that conclusion.
The first acknowledges a consideration that weighs against the conclusion of the argument; the second provides evidence in support of that conclusion.
The first provides evidence in support of the conclusion of the argument; the second acknowledges a consideration that weighs against that conclusion.
The first is a judgment advanced in support of the conclusion of the argument; the second is that conclusion.
第一句完全不是fact 不要误导大家啦带有almost certainly都优先考虑成judgement,consideration
不属于evidence
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论
a和e的区别在对第一句的解释。 第一句重点在后半句, 宇航员的想法。 所以不能当作一个circumstance(客观情况) 来讲。
The first presents a circumstance for which the astronomer offers an explanation; the second is part of that explanation.
第一个黑体中,只展示了一个事实+天文学家的观点,并没有说明天文学家是如何解释为什么碎片不含硫之类的观点,因此A错误;
E选项:更合理,第一个黑体展示了观点,第二个黑体根据该观点得出了结论
BF1:碎片本身不含硫,但大气层下的云层含硫
BF2:碎片的大小至少要使它不被烧焦在大气层中
∴segment至少大得能穿云
黑脸BF题
A、说②offer explain的是astronauts,但是第二段(②)应该是作者自己的观点
已知第二黑脸为conclusion,第一黑脸总体support它
且重心错了,A让人觉得①才是中心思想,②只是①的explain登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论
第一个粗体是观点型前提,认为碎片不含硫,而木星外围大气含硫登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论
两个黑体中间没有转折,很明显是顺推,没有against。
第一个是一个条件,天文学家在解释这个条件。CR:天文学家没有解释why the first,他只是在说在这个前提条件下,可以推断出……。
boldface 2:碎片至少大到在不被燃烧完的情况下,穿过Jupiter外层
错选A:The first presents a circumstance for which the astronomer offers an explanation。并没有对boldface 1作出解释,没有解释为什么碎片不含硫以及为什么Jupiter外层包含硫
explanation 和 conclusion 有区别吗?
最终排掉是因为我觉得后面那个不是part of explanation 它就是全部
这样理解对吗?
感谢!!!
这个条件是用来证明结论的,因为一开始目的就很明确了。hopes of gaining some indication of the fragments' size的。 行文逻辑是结论 -条件-确认结论(V)而不是先发现了一个事实,然后解释这个事实。 事实-得出一个结论 (X)
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论