[問題]GWD23-Q32

[k06922001]

Excavations of the Roman city of Sepphoris have uncovered numerous detailed mosaics depicting several readily identifiable animal species: a hare, a partridge, and various Mediterranean fish. Oddly, most of the species represented did not live in the Sepphoris region when these mosaics were created. Since identical motifs appear in mosaics found in other Roman cities, however, the mosaics of Sepphoris were very likely created by traveling artisans from some other part of the Roman Empire.

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

A. The Sepphoris mosaics are not composed exclusively of types of stones found naturally in the Sepphoris area.
B. There is no single region to which all the species depicted in the Sepphoris mosaics are native.
C. No motifs appear in the Sepphoris mosaics that do not also appear in the mosaics of some other Roman city.
D. All of the animal figures in the Sepphoris mosaics are readily identifiable as representations of known species.
E. There was not a common repertory of mosaic designs with which artisans who lived in various parts of the Roman Empire were familiar.

答案是E....我不太能理解為什麼耶?E的意思是說..因為住再Roman的藝術家對於一般的mosaic designs 並不熟悉....所以推得....在藝術家旅行到Sepphoris 之前都沒有看過mosaic designs ....所以這是他們創造的??是這樣嗎???

[hughes0305]

因為:
identical motifs appear in mosaics found in other Roman cities
所以:
the mosaics of Sepphoris were very likely created by traveling artisans from some other part of the Roman Empire

如果在羅馬帝國地區就有熟悉這方面的工匠的話, 為何還要說這些藝術品是從羅馬帝國以外的地方引進的呢??

簡單說, 此推論必須要有成立在 " 羅馬帝國地區沒有人對此藝術創作熟悉"的前題下(即E), 方可成立!

[crazykai]

還是不太懂這題的說...><

說說我的想法請大大們解惑

結論是說：因此這些馬賽克拼磚是由來自其他羅馬城市的藝術家所完成。

(E) 取非 - 整個羅馬帝國的藝術家有共同的創作題材 → 仍無法因此判定是S的藝術家，或非S的藝術家創作

(D) 取非 - S城的馬賽克描繪的動物不是被人們所知的物種 → 大家都憑空想像創作 → 也無法判定是S的藝術家，或非S的藝術家創作

麻煩大家了 <(_ _)>

[ilovecushi]

help pls~

[stamps]

請留意原題最後一句：作者認為這些作品可能是由“旅行“羅馬帝國其他地方的藝術家創作的＝>他們旅行所見造就了作品呈現不同地方的風格
答案Ｅ是幫忙排除另一種可能性：藝術家的靈感非由“旅行“所得,而且表現其居住地（可能散佈在羅馬帝國各處）的風格

[lindababy]

Excavations of the Roman city of Sepphoris have uncovered numerous detailed mosaics depicting several readily identifiable animal species: a hare, a partridge, and various Mediterranean fish. Oddly, most of the species represented did not live in the Sepphoris region when these mosaics were created. Since identical motifs appear in mosaics found in other Roman cities, however, the mosaics of Sepphoris were very likely created by traveling artisans from some other part of the Roman Empire.

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

A.The Sepphoris mosaics are not composed exclusively of types of stones found naturally in the Sepphoris area.
B.There is no single region to which all the species depicted in the Sepphoris mosaics are native.
C.No motifs appear in the Sepphoris mosaics that do not also appear in the mosaics of some other Roman city.
D.All of the animal figures in the Sepphoris mosaics are readily identifiable as representations of known species.
E.There was not a common repertory of mosaic designs with which artisans who lived in various parts of the Roman Empire were familiar.

說說我的思路：

結論：S地的作品，很有可能是來自於羅馬其他地方的旅行工匠所製作。
假設→取非後，S地的作品，不是其他地方的工匠所做。

(A)無關，馬賽克由什麼石頭組成無關作品的製作者來源。
(B)無關，和工匠的出處無關。
(C)無關，作品出現的地方和製作者的來源無關。
(D)無關，是不是所有在作品上面的動物可不可以辨識不是重點。
(E)Correct，取非後，有一個共通的design使得各地的作品都很類似，所以不一定是來自於別地的工匠才能夠做得出來，反駁原結論。

[angela_yj0424]

不太懂C欸︰C意思是說沒有主題出現在S的鑲嵌工藝上，這個工藝是其他羅馬城市所沒有出現的。取非就變成了，有主題出現在S的鑲嵌工藝上，這個工藝是其他羅馬城市所出現的。加強了結論－S地的作品，很有可能是來自於羅馬其他地方的旅行工匠所製作。是降嗎？不太懂取非怎樣對C取非欸﹗求大大幫忙﹗thx :P

[angela_yj0424]

暈了暈了，再看一次感覺C這句好像只是在重複了一遍原因而已︰identical motifs appear in mosaics found in other Roman cities, 大家的感覺呢？><

[lindababy]

Excavations of the Roman city of Sepphoris have uncovered numerous detailed mosaics depicting several readily identifiable animal species: a hare, a partridge, and various Mediterranean fish. Oddly, most of the species represented did not live in the Sepphoris region when these mosaics were created. Since identical motifs appear in mosaics found in other Roman cities, however, the mosaics of Sepphoris were very likely created by traveling artisans from some other part of the Roman Empire.

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

A.The Sepphoris mosaics are not composed exclusively of types of stones found naturally in the Sepphoris area.
B.There is no single region to which all the species depicted in the Sepphoris mosaics are native.
C.No motifs appear in the Sepphoris mosaics that do not also appear in the mosaics of some other Roman city.
D.All of the animal figures in the Sepphoris mosaics are readily identifiable as representations of known species.
E.There was not a common repertory of mosaic designs with which artisans who lived in various parts of the Roman Empire were familiar.

說說我的思路：

結論：S地的作品，很有可能是來自於羅馬其他地方的旅行工匠所製作。
假設→取非後，S地的作品，不是其他地方的工匠所做。

(A)無關，馬賽克由什麼石頭組成無關作品的製作者來源。
(B)無關，和工匠的出處無關。
(C)無關，作品出現的地方和製作者的來源無關。
(D)無關，是不是所有在作品上面的動物可不可以辨識不是重點。
(E)Correct，取非後，有一個共通的design使得各地的作品都很類似，所以不一定是來自於別地的工匠才能夠做得出來，反駁原結論。

剛剛又看了一遍(C)No motifs appear in the Sepphoris mosaics that do not also appear in the mosaics of some other Roman city.
有了新的想法
(C)選項應該是說只要出現在s地的主題在其他羅馬都市也都一定會有
但是這題的假設不用包含"全部"的主題阿，只要題目原文提到的那些跟 identifiable animal species有關的就可以了。所以取非反駁之後也不會反駁原文結論，因為原文本來就沒有指涉全部的意思。