[問題]GWD 28-Q9

[bonus]

Q9:

Early in the twentieth century, Lake Konfa became very polluted. Recently fish populations have recovered as release of industrial pollutants has declined and the lake’s waters have become cleaner. Fears are now being voiced that the planned construction of an oil pipeline across the lake’s bottom might revive pollution and cause the fish population to decline again. However, a technology for preventing leaks is being installed. Therefore, provided this technology is effective, those fears are groundless.

The argument depends on assuming which of the following?

A. Apart from development related to the pipeline, there will be no new industrial development around the lake that will create renewed pollution in its waters.
B. Other than the possibility of a leak, there is no realistic pollution threat posed to the lake by the pipeline’s construction.
C. There is no reason to believe that the leak-preventing technology would be ineffective when installed in the pipeline in Lake Konfa.
D. Damage to the lake’s fish populations would be the only harm that a leak of oil from the pipeline would cause.
E. The species of fish that are present in Lake Konfa now are the same as those that were in the lake before it was affected by pollution.

Answer: B

[bonus]

B取非正好削弱該結論的必要條件，故為假設無疑。
排除了涉及PIPELINE的其他污染可能
（安裝會導致污染）

[lindababy]

Early in the twentieth century, Lake Konfa became very polluted. Recently fish populations have recovered as release of industrial pollutants has declined and the lake’s waters have become cleaner. Fears are now being voiced that the planned construction of an oil pipeline across the lake’s bottom might revive pollution and cause the fish population to decline again. However, a technology for preventing leaks is being installed. Therefore, provided this technology is effective, those fears are groundless.

The argument depends on assuming which of the following?

A. Apart from development related to the pipeline, there will be no new industrial development around the lake that will create renewed pollution in its waters.
B. Other than the possibility of a leak, there is no realistic pollution threat posed to the lake by the pipeline’s construction
C. There is no reason to believe that the leak-preventing technology would be ineffective when installed in the pipeline in Lake Konfa.
D. Damage to the lake’s fish populations would be the only harm that a leak of oil from the pipeline would cause.
E. The species of fish that are present in Lake Konfa now are the same as those that were in the lake before it was affected by pollution.

答案(B)

可以同意答案為(B)
但常常被(C)拐走

當時做題是這樣想的
原文說：擔心建造油管會有汙染。但防漏油技術會有效防止漏油，所以不用擔心建造油管會有汙染。
(C)取非，有理由相信防漏油技術會無效，這樣不就要擔心建造油管會汙染，所以反駁原文結論。排除之後成為假設。

我有上CD看討論，有提到：
该题结论为充分必要型结论，答案取非后削弱该结论的必要条件。B取非正好削弱该结论的必要条件，故为假设无疑。

A错在结论的FEAR是针对油管道导致的污染，和其它工业导致的FEAR无关。C错在它取非后否定的是结论中的充分条件，不是必要条件，所以不能成为假设。

老實說充分必要我在讀題的時候根本分不太出來
所以不太能夠理解這樣的思路
不知道有沒有什麼比較好的想法可以準確的將(C)答案排除呢?

謝謝

[whoisallan]

There is no reason to believe that....

I think it's not clear and convincing...

排出他因造成此結果...經常被拿來當作assumption的正確選項

隨邊翻了2題: PP1~14,19

平行敘述 or 類似support (像這題的C) 基本上都是錯的