Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/formosam/public_html/phpBB3/includes/bbcode.php on line 112

Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/formosam/public_html/phpBB3/includes/bbcode.php on line 112
FormosaMBA 傷心咖啡店 • 檢視主題 - GWD6-Q5 to Q7:

GWD6-Q5 to Q7:

GMAT 考的是閱讀....閱讀....還是閱讀....

版主: shpassion, Traver0818

文章eiswein » 2006-09-19 15:04

我也認為第六題應該是C而不是B
因為B只有講made use of the small animals
沒有weaken的效果

而C則指出climate change一直都有
所以並不是造成extinction的原因
所以我選C
頭像
eiswein
中級會員
中級會員
 
文章: 181
註冊時間: 2006-04-13 21:53
來自: Ann Arbor, Michigan

文章http1303cc » 2006-11-10 08:40

agk99大大
你的解析真是太棒了
幫了我很大的忙!!!
謝謝你的付出
超感恩
^_____^
http1303cc
新手會員
新手會員
 
文章: 17
註冊時間: 2006-08-14 11:25

文章Arlene » 2007-07-13 19:32

我的理解不太一樣,大家討論一下。

According to a theory advanced
by researcher Paul Martin, the wave
of species extinctions that occurred
in North America about 11,000 years
(5) 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. PM認為人的祖先要負起動物滅絕的責任However, anthropologist
(10) Shepard Krech points out that large
animal species vanished even in areas
where there is no evidence to demon-
strate that Paleoindians hunted them.
SK跳出來反駁PM
Nor were extinctions confined to large
(15) animals: small animals, plants, and
insects disappeared, presumably not
all through human consumption.
還是在反駁PM
Krech
also contradicts Martin’s exclusion of
climatic change as an explanation by
(20) asserting that widespread climatic
change did indeed occur at the end of
the Pleistocene.
SK提出他不認同M排除氣候變異這項因素因素
(By宣稱氣候變異確實發生在the end of
the Pleistocene.)
Still, Krech attributes
secondary if not primary responsibility
for the extinctions to the Paleoindians,
(25) arguing that humans have produced
local extinctions elsewhere.
儘管如此,SK還是認為除了氣候之外,
人也是因素之一(secondary if not primary responsibility)
(讀到這裡整理 背後隱含:
PM:人類要負全責
M:不認為是氣候應該是人要負責
SK:認為動物滅絕有兩個因素—氣候和人local extinction)

But,
according to historian Richard White,
even the attribution of secondary
responsibility may not be supported
(30) by the evidence.
RW認為SK歸咎到人(secondary)是不對的,因沒證據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
(35) are controversial, does not challenge
them;
RW又說M資料的日期有問題,但是SK卻沒有質疑
(背後隱含:M的資料裡人類到達和滅亡的時間有問題
表示人類和滅亡有無因果關係是要存疑的
再一次推翻SK認為人也是因素之一的論點)

yet recent archaeological
discoveries are providing evidence
that the date of human arrival was
much earlier than 11,000 years ago.
新發現證實人類早在動物滅亡前到抵達了
(背後隱含:真正的原因是氣候)


Q6: most weaken K's objection to M's theory?
我認為(B)無法解釋,因為從文章來看,人類怎麼用那些動物都是SK用來反駁PM的描述與解說,並不是用來反駁M的。
(C)文章裡SK反駁M的理論,說明氣候變化是有發生的。所以要WEAKEN,就要找跟天氣相關的選項。(C)恰好說明氣候的變化在之前就發生,之後也發生,SK用氣候發生變化的理由去攻擊M就變的站不住腳,沒有立場了。
Arlene
初級會員
初級會員
 
文章: 37
註冊時間: 2007-04-12 01:27

文章mbaluke » 2007-09-05 11:31

文章main idea為討論史前印地安人類與更新世末期物種大滅絕的關係

Shepard Krech的主要理論
Shepard Krech points out that large animal species vanished even in areas where there is no evidence to demonstrate that Paleoindians hunted them.
沒有證據顯示在某些地區large animal 消失, 是因為史前印地安人獵食
Nor were extinctions confined to large animals: small animals, plants, and insects disappeared, presumably not all through human consumption.
滅絕也不限於large animal, 而且small animals, plants, and insects的滅絕也不可能都是因為人類的獵食或食用

Q6 Which of the following, if true, would most weaken Krech's objections to Martin's theory?
(B) New discoveries indicating that Paleoindians made use of the small animals, plants, and insects that became extinct.
這些滅絕的small animals, plants, and insects, 的確遭到史前印地安人類獵食或食用

Krech "also" contradicts Martin’s exclusion of climatic............. 次要理論
(C) 反了上句, 但also顯示其為Krech次要理論, 且與(B)相比, (C) 較偏離本文章的main idea, (C)討論的是天氣與物種滅絕的關係

兩相比較, 最佳的答案應為 (B), (C)沒有錯, 但沒有答案(B)好
Luke Liu
MBA Class'10
Babson College
頭像
mbaluke
初級會員
初級會員
 
文章: 42
註冊時間: 2007-03-25 08:08

文章sunnyblue13s » 2008-01-30 22:50

Q6.

很具爭議的一題:我傾向選B...
題目要weaken的對象...."是K反對M’s論點的理由".....

我們先看什麼是M論點.....
M認為動物滅絕的主因是人類的到來....
(徹頭徹尾沒有說他的理論跟天氣有關;只說他論點的建立確實是忽略了天氣的要素).......

K反對什麼:
1. 反對:M說動物滅絕的主因是人類的到來 ;理由:他說沒有證據證實人類獵殺大型動物,又說小型的動物消失只可能部分跟人類消耗他們有關

2.反對:M的論點的建立確實是忽略了天氣的要素 (但K只有說有證據證實,在P的末期天氣有遽變)

- 所以傾向選擇B.....B爲M加強了理論....加強M....就是"不支持"K的反對論述....因此為weaken.....

- - 所以 C 有點從天而降的感覺~~正推反推...我都推不出來~~但文章的論述...確實會誤導~~很奸詐的一題!!
sunnyblue13s
中級會員
中級會員
 
文章: 236
註冊時間: 2006-01-18 23:05
來自: Phoenix, AZ

Re: GWD6-Q5 to Q7:

文章candice.lee » 2010-02-01 00:11

關於第6題我的看法是B對。

原因在於是要weaken SK的想法。

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.

SK認為climate change有發生。答案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. 指出climate change 不只在xx時間有發生,其他時間也有發生。那要怎麼weaken SK呢??

答案B就很直觀的weaken SK啊!
candice.lee
新手會員
新手會員
 
文章: 6
註冊時間: 2007-03-21 11:58

上一頁

回到 GMAT Reading Comprehension 考區

誰在線上

正在瀏覽這個版面的使用者:沒有註冊會員 和 6 位訪客

cron