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.
原文中说 发现沉船时，hull断成的两截挨在一起。接着说，violent waves会让漂浮在海面上的pieces离得更远，（而现在是挨在一起的，言外之意是hull断了的时候并没有在海平面上，也就是说hull是在船沉了之后/在水里面断裂的），所以并不是因为hull的断裂导致的sinking（因为前面推理出船沉到水里后，hull才断裂的）。
原文中是果因推理，果：打捞沉船时，hull的pieces挨在一起。推出 因：不是因为hull的断裂导致的sinking。
assumption来加强果因之间的联系，即排除它因
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论