[問題] GWD 32-1

[misia]

1. GWD32-Q1

The cause of the wreck of the ship Edmund Fitzgeraid 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?

A. Ships as large as the Edmund Fitzgerald rarely sink except in the most violent weather.
B. Under water currents at the time of the storm did not move the separated pieces of the hull together again.
C. Pieces of the hull would have sunk more quickly than the intact hull would have
D. The waves of the storm were not violent enough to have caused the (D選項原始版本就是不完整的)
E. If the ship broke up before sinking , the pieces of the hull would not have remained on the surface for very long

這題大家覺得是不是選B呢?

由於GWD32並沒有答案,
非常需要大家一起討論出答案喔!!
謝謝~~

[Austing]

1. GWD32-Q1

The cause of the wreck of the ship Edmund Fitzgeraid 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?

A. Ships as large as the Edmund Fitzgerald rarely sink except in the most violent weather.
B. Under water currents at the time of the storm did not move the separated pieces of the hull together again.
C. Pieces of the hull would have sunk more quickly than the intact hull would have
D. The waves of the storm were not violent enough to have caused the (D選項原始版本就是不完整的)
E. If the ship broke up before sinking , the pieces of the hull would not have remained on the surface for very long

這題大家覺得是不是選B呢?

由於GWD32並沒有答案,
非常需要大家一起討論出答案喔!!
謝謝~~

-----------------------------------------------------------
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(排除) as the cause of the sinking.
結論:hull不是造成沉船原因
推導過程:暴風所造成的浪使得短暫漂浮在表面的碎片(I suppose this is hull)分開
問assumption 選項取非
B.洋流再次移動hull
E.hull在表面很久

嗯我也覺得是B

[achiachia]

我也投B）一票

[brownie1214]

ccc...參一腳...

可是B 我就搞不清楚跟題目特別說出來的這段話有啥關聯性li..

The storm’s violent waves would have caused separate pieces floating even briefly on the surface to drift apart 總覺得這句話應該有提出來的意義

如果E. If the ship broke up before sinking , the pieces of the hull would not have remained on the surface for very long
我自己解釋成
要能夠在海底下還被一同發現船身的殘骸 前提是船隻若是被暴風雨攻擊前就毀壞 必須要很快沉到海裡 不然暴風雨的強度 馬上就會把他們飄到不同的地方
醬---> 觀察人員在海底就找不到在一起的殘骸哩 因為被飄走la...

所以.. E 一票



?... 不知對不對... ㄎ...

[A級垂耳兔]

當然不對..答案E可以算是weaken吧...離假設還有點遠...

[習慣仔]

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

B. Under water currents at the time of the storm did not move the separated pieces of the hull together again.

When asked for assumption, 可用反證法：　若 B 不發生，結論肯定無法成立.

In other words, if underwater currents moved the separated pieces of the hull together again, then the conclusion must be false (" the breakup of the hull can't be ruled out as the cause of the sinking.").

My 2 cents

[lucyyeh]

我看Too-Too版D選項後面加了一個字breakup

傷腦筋，我最後一句看不出來跟前面有什麼關係，可以請高手解釋一下嗎？

我不知道為什麼隱隱約約的覺得D也是對的

[Huang Hsin-Yi]

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.

同問,這個原因和結論,我連不起來

原因:暴風雨會讓船身不同處
結論:破船不是沉船原因,因為船身兩個殘骸在一起

阿哈,我知道為何有這個結論

因為船身如果真的破掉然後沉船, 那暴風雨會把它們推散
但因它們在一起,所以是其他原因,如沒油拉或沒氣拉, 而導致沉船的

前提:暴風雨不會將殘骸吹在一起,才能用原因推出結論

(d)無關,因為本提討論破船是否為沉船原因,和暴風雨強度是否導致破船的議題無關

你公對不對阿?