扫描二维码，直接登录
题库 / Prep2007E1-CR-27
Plant scientists have used genetic engineering on seeds to produce crop plants that are highly resistant to insect damage. Unfortunately, the seeds themselves are quite expensive, and the plants require more fertilizer and water to grow well than normal ones. Thus, for most farmers the savings on pesticides would not compensate for the higher seed costs and the cost of additional fertilizer. However, since consumer demand for grains, fruits, and vegetables grown without the use of pesticides continues to rise, the use of genetically engineered seeds of this kind is likely to become widespread.
In the argument given, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?
The first supplies a context for the argument; the second is the argument's main conclusion.
The first introduces a development that the argument predicts will have a certain outcome; the second is a state of affairs that the argument denies will be part of that outcome.
The first presents a development that the argument predicts will have a certain outcome; the second acknowledges a consideration that weighs against that prediction.
The first provides evidence to support a prediction that the argument seeks to defend; the second is that prediction.
The first and the second each provide evidence to support the argument's main conclusion.
1 Plant scientists have used genetic engineering on seeds to produce crop plants that are highly resistant to insect damage.
2 Unfortunately, the seeds themselves are quite expensive, and the plants require more fertilizer and water to grow well than normal ones.
3 Thus, for most farmers the savings on pesticides would not compensate for the higher seed costs and the cost of additional fertilizer.
4 However, since consumer demand for grains, fruits, and vegetables grown without the use of pesticides continues to rise, the use of genetically engineered seeds of this kind is likely to become widespread.
the structure of this argument is:
1 = background fact
2, therefore 3
however, 4 (which weakens conclusion 3)
if you figure out that much, then it's clear that #3 is the CONCLUSION. (that's the single most important thing you can do on critical reasoning: figure out what's the conclusion.)
since neither of the boldface portions is the conclusion, choice a and choice d are dead. (both of those claim that the second part is the conclusion.)
now, analyze the boldface parts a little better:
#2 (the first boldface) serves as a premise for #3
#4 (the second bold) serves as a counterpoint to #3, weakening the lasting value of the conclusion
...which is basically what choice c says.
choice b is tempting, but you should note that the argument is specifically designed to point out that this 'state of affairs' CAN affect the outcome. choice e is nonsensical, as the two boldfaces are on completely opposite sides of the proverbial fence.
conclusion不是最后的观点，conclusion是一个基于fact/premise/inference后的一个therefore....登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论
第一句：Unfortunately, the seeds themselves are quite expensive, and the plants require more fertilizer and water to grow well than normal ones
第二句：since consumer demand for grains, fruits, and vegetables grown without the use of pesticides continues to rise
亲，这个argument有几个版本的题哦，建议你多了解下再发言
题干一样，但是如果划线不同的题选项也不一样。这个选项对应的题目就是楼上说的这么画的线，建议你多了解下登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论
第一个黑体字不是背景，而是给出了一个seeds的缺点。黑体字的题目中，不用理解一些抽象名词，比如，这里就完全不用管development的意思，只关心它身后的同位语从句的意思就行了。
背景应该怎么定义呢？本段第一句话可以看做是背景吗？
1. 和核心推理无关的部分都可以被称为是背景。2. 可以。
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论
argument predicts will have a certain outcome 说的是第一句话而不是第二句...
第二句：since consumer demand for grains, fruits, and vegetables grown without the use of pesticides continues to rise
题有误
重要的是后面的定语，而不是the first is xx, the second is xx.
第一个表明了预测会有certain outcome,即为seeds expensive, more water and fetilizer; 第二个承认了一个反驳预测的想法/考虑
B) The first part is fine, but the second is not. The argument does not deny that the second boldface will be part of the outcome - rather, it says that the contrasting viewpoint is likely to overcome the main point of view.
choice B关于第二个黑体的描述是有问题的：原文逻辑并没有否认第二个黑体会发生，相反是支持第二个黑体有可能会发生