扫描二维码，直接登录
题库 / Prep2012-RC-71
According to a theory advanced by researcher Paul Martin, the wave of species extinctions that occurred in North America about 11,000 years ago, at the end of the Pleistocene era, can be directly attributed to the arrival of humans, i.e., the Paleoindians, who were ancestors of modern Native Americans. However, anthropologist Shepard Krech points out that large animal species vanished even in areas where there is no evidence to demonstrate that Paleoindians hunted them. Nor were extinctions confined to large animals: small animals, plants, and insects disappeared, presumably not all through human consumption. Krech also contradicts Martin's exclusion of climatic change as an explanation by asserting that widespread climatic change did indeed occur at the end of the Pleistocene. Still, Krech attributes secondary if not primary responsibility for the extinctions to the Paleoindians, arguing that humans have produced local extinctions elsewhere. But, according to historian Richard White, even the attribution of secondary responsibility may not be supported by the evidence. White observes that Martin's thesis depends on coinciding dates for the arrival of humans and the decline of large animal species, and Krech, though aware that the dates are controversial, does not challenge them; yet recent archaeological discoveries are providing evidence that the date of human arrival was much earlier than 11,000 years ago.
Which of the following, if true, would most weaken Krech's objections to Martin's theory?
Further studies showing that the climatic change that occurred at the end of the Pleistocene era was even more severe and widespread than was previously behaved
New discoveries indicating that Paleoindians made use of the small animals, plants, and insects that became extinct
Additional evidence indicating that widespread climatic change occurred not only at the end of the Pleistocene era but also in previous and subsequent eras
Researchers' discoveries that many more species became extinct in North America at the end of the Pleistocene era than was previously believed
New discoveries establishing that both the arrival of humans in North America and the wave of Pleistocene extinctions took place much earlier than 11,000 years ago
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 E。Krech 否认 Martin 的理论，基本上依赖于人类到达北美和大型动物物种消失的时间以及它们之间的关联。因此，如果有新发现表明人类到达和物种消失也都发生在 11000 年之前，这就会削弱 Krech 的反对 Martin 理论的观点，因此 E 是正确答案。
Shepard Krech从三方面用来反驳Paul Martin的观点：1）大动物的灭绝发生在没有证据证明P捕猎的情况下；2）灭绝不局限于大动物，一些不被P人使用的小动物、植物等也灭绝了；3）天气也在灭绝起到了作用
choice b, 直接反驳了第二点，证明P人会去使用小动物等
题目问most weaken。虽然B的证据不一定表明完全是人类导致的，但是在一定程度上给了证据去加强(Nor were extinctions confined to large animals: small animals, plants, and insects disappeared, presumably not all through human consumption.)
c climate change 存在，krech的反驳是climate change 是一个影响因素，c增强了
krech 的观点
三个人：PM：1、人类干的，2、climate干的
SK：1、人类没有hunt，2、不是大动物，3、是天气（PM：不是天气），4、怎么看都bu可能是人类
RW：否认SK，SK忽略了一个矛盾
其实SK的所有观点都是反驳PM这个人的，除了climate还有consumption这个事，一般阅读题跟逻辑题不同，阅读题是直接削弱或直接加强。文章说没有evidence，从而支持了某人的观点，那就直接取反：新的evidence证明有这件事
三个人：PM：1、人类干的，2、climate干的
SK：1、人类没有hunt，2、不是大动物，3、是天气（PM：不是天气），4、怎么看都可能是人类
RW：否认SK，SK忽略了一个矛盾
其实SK的所有观点都是反驳PM这个人的，除了climate还有consumption这个事，一般阅读题跟逻辑题不同，阅读题是直接削弱或直接加强。文章说没有evidence，从而支持了某人的观点，那就直接取反：新的evidence证明有这件事
观点题要弄清楚每个人的观点。M观点：1人类是一些物种灭绝的原因 2气候变化不是他们灭绝的原因因为那会儿还没有真的发生气候变化 K观点：1大型动物是在没有人类捕捉他们的地区灭绝的 2一些小型动物的消失也不完全是因为人类的消耗 W观点：M的文章是根据人类出现时间和物种灭绝时间的对应来得出猜测结果的，K发现了却没去challenge，最近研究得出人类的出现要比11，000年还早许多 === 削弱K的观点
Nor were extinctions confined to large animals: small animals, plants, and insects disappeared, presumably not all through human consumption
C选项说了其他时代，但是文章没有说其他时代没有灭绝
c climate change 存在，krech的反驳是climate change 是一个影响因素，c增强了
krech 的观点
M的观点是，气候变化与物种灭绝无关。K认为是错误的。题目问哪个选项能削弱K的观点，转换一下，题目其实问的是哪个选项支持M的观点，即：气候变化与物种灭绝无关。C：气候变化在这段时期的前后都发生过。其中的隐喻就是，气候变化一直都有，如果物种灭绝真的与气候变化有关，那么为什么只有16000年前这一次导致了物种灭绝呢？。因此纯粹从这个选项的角度来讲，C的确是符合题干要求的。C的错误在于，文章中并没有提到这段时间之前或者之后的气候变化是否导致了物种灭绝，因此C所表达的隐喻仅靠这篇文章无法成立。
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论
C的问题是，选项想用“同因反果”来削弱K的观点，即，P era有climatic change, 有灭绝，其他era也有climatic change, 但是却没有灭绝，所以climatic change不是导致灭绝的原因。但是选项中并没有提到其他era没有灭绝这件事，这是我们自己脑补的事实，即选项中并没有提供“果”，所以错
对的
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论
遇到观点对比题，一定要把每个人的观点弄清楚！！！！！
B选项说人类made use of balabalabala，推翻了K
K对于M的反对主要是在强调两个事情
①指出有些人类不consume的东西也extinct 了==》人类不是导致extinction的主要愿意
②M认为天气变化不是extinction的原因，但是K指出这是很有可能的
所以反驳要么说天气变化没有，要么说人类consume所有东西
Krech also contradicts Martin's exclusion（排除 exclusion of sb.） of climatic change as an explanation by asserting that widespread climatic change did indeed occur at the end of the Pleistocene.（K否定了M的说法：M的说法是排除了天气变化这个原因） Still, Krech attributes secondary if not primary responsibility for the extinctions to the Paleoindians, arguing that humans have produced local extinctions elsewhere.（K认为人类的原因只能排第二）
Nor were extinctions confined （extinctions were not confined to...nor用在句首要倒装）to large animals: small animals, plants, and insects disappeared, presumably not all through human consumption.（指出并不是所有extinction的物种都是人类所消耗的）
However, anthropologist Shepard Krech points out that large animal species vanished even in areas where there is no evidence to demonstrate that Paleoindians hunted them. Nor were extinctions confined to large animals: small animals, plants, and insects disappeared, presumably not all through human consumption. Krech also contradicts Martin's exclusion of climatic change as an explanation by asserting that widespread climatic change did indeed occur at the end of the Pleistocene.
选项B刚好反驳了第二个论据（小动物植物昆虫的消失不是由于人类的使用comsumption）：New discoveries indicating that Paleoindians made use of the small animals, plants, and insects that became extinct. 选项把原文关键词consumption 改写为 use. 这个是gmac 常用伎俩。
Martin: the wave of species extinctions can be directly attributed to the arrival of humans.
Krech:1） no evidence to demonstrate that Paleoindians hunted them;
2） Nor were extinctions confined to large animals: small animals, plants, and insects disappeared, not all through human consumption.
3）climatic change is not an explanation, widespread climatic change did indeed occur at the end of the Pleistocene.
该题属于细节题，是krech指出灭绝不光出现的大型动物上，包括小型动物，植物，昆虫之类的都出现灭绝的情况，那这些灭绝并不全是由人类消耗的。这里是用来攻击Martin的观点，Martin说物种灭绝是因为人类到来，然后猎杀动物，所以导致的灭绝。削弱krech的观点就是：证据显示小型动物的灭绝也是因为人类的原因---从而加强了martin的灭绝是由人类造成的观点。
首先要搞清楚他们中的几个人到底支持什么样的观点：
Martin：灭绝是由人类造成的
krech：人类是灭绝的第二原因，气候也是灭绝的原因
white: martin的论文是依靠人类出现的时间和灭绝的时间一致所以将人类归结为原因，而krech发现了Martin的这个问题，但是没有指出来
最后证据显示人类的到来其实比灭绝要早11000年----灭绝不是人类导致的