扫描二维码，直接登录
题库 / Prep2012-CR-58
The cause of the wreck of the ship Edmund Fitzgerald in a severe storm on Lake Superior is still unknown. When the sunken wreckage of the vessel was found, searchers discovered the hull in two pieces lying close together. The storm's violent waves would have caused separate pieces floating even briefly on the surface to drift apart. Therefore, the breakup of the hull can be ruled out as the cause of the sinking.
Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?
Ships as large as the Edmund Fitzgerald rarely sink except in the most violent weather.
Underwater currents at the time of the storm did not move the separated pieces of the hull together again.
Pieces of the hull would have sunk more quickly than the intact hull would have.
The waves of the storm were not violent enough to have caused the ship to break up on the surface.
If the ship broke up before sinking, the pieces of the hull would not have remained on the surface for very long.
我觉得这道题稍微有点绕：沉船的遗骸被发现时很奇怪，船体已经成了2瓣儿，竟然还在一起。于是搜寻者分析，风暴的巨浪理应可以把不同的船体给漂离。。。GAP。。。得出结论：船体碎成2瓣儿可以被排除在沉船的原因之外了。题目考的是，这个GAP是什么（assumption on）。
搜寻者的假设应该是，如果船体破碎是造成沉船的原因，那么在沉船之前，船体就应该碎了，那么巨浪肯定会把2个船体打远，怎么可能还在一起。所以船体应该是在沉船以后才碎的，重点来了，而且“水底的水流没有把漂离的船体又给整到一起来”，这样这个假设过程才完整。这道题难选在，它考的不是中心假设，而是一个次要的、补完性质的假设，需要你再多想一层。
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论