GWD6-Q6

[aqboy[origen]]

GWD6-

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
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.

Q6

Q6:

Which of the following, if true, would most weaken
Krech’s objections to Martin’s theory?

A. 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
believed

B. New discoveries indicating that Paleoindians made
use of the small animals, plants, and insects that
became extinct

C. Additional evidence indicating that widespread
climatic change occurred not only at the end of the
Pleistocene era but also in previous and subsequent
eras

D. Researchers’ discoveries that many more species
became extinct in North America at the end of the
Pleistocene era than was previously believed

E. 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

請問這題的答案是b還是c啊??

看了一些討論但也沒定論

我比較頃向b~~

有人有高見嗎??

[Huang Hsin-Yi]

答案是C巴

題目問:那個weaken K先生對M先生的論點
M先生:人類造成動物絕種
K先生:不對,天氣可能是動物絕種原因
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.


(C)天氣變化不只在at the end of the Pleistocene,之前就有-------排除天氣因素


至於B則是 部份support k先生, 那大型動物勒? 更重要的是,它沒針對 k先生提出的解釋加以反駁
我認為是 迷惑選項

[aqboy[origen]]

我覺得題目應該是問下列哪一個weaken掉K先生反對M先生理論的理由(負負得正,也就是支持M先生)


M:認為天氣是使動物絕種的原因

K:否定上述M關於天氣的觀點

C選項排除了天氣因素,

所以C應該不對吧

B選項說:新證據顯示P人利用過那些瀕臨絕種的small animal, plants ,and insects(翻得不太順@@)

表示P人跟牠們的絕種有關係

Nor were extinctions confined to large animals: small animals,
plants, and insects disappeared, presumably not all through human consumption.

但上面那句話表示K認為P人和那些小動物的滅絕無關

所以B選項應該是弱化了K反對M理論的論點

其實B我也並沒有很確定,因為句子意思沒有全看懂

但其他選項(包括C)都可以確定是錯的

所以也還是覺得B好,只是解釋得不太好

也希望有人可以對這題再多討論瞜

[Huang Hsin-Yi]

很抱歉!我k與m的論點寫顛倒,但支持C的理由沒變
理由是:

k說天氣變化是 造成滅種
但C說 天氣變化不是後來才有,是以前也有,因此這個證據顯示天氣並不是因素,那在無其它解釋前, 無法排除人類可能才是因素(M先生)