D 选项说唯一的方法是发射t到更远的轨道，因此排除了题目说的爆炸t 这一个提议，所以我认为是weaken F 选项说大量小碎片会阻碍远距离的观察，但是原文并没有说爆炸t会产生小碎片，所以我觉得不太好 综上所述，我选d 但是答案是e 是不是逻辑题里没一点信息都是不会多于的，既然原文有讲到碎片（虽然没讲爆炸会产生碎片），是不是表明爆炸和碎片是有关的，否则原文可以不提碎片的内容？

想问一下唐老师, 按照技巧做,为什么B选项不行? B选项的结尾是说"方法不行", prohibitively expensive, 和E比,通过技巧, 如何排除?

我选的A，当时直接把E排除了。

老师好， 这个题目我读懂的意思是： 尽管 large artificial satellites数量比少mall pieces of debris，但是他们对telescope observations影响很大，所以决定要对他们（nonfunctioning satellites）进行处理。但是这个决定不好，因为如下某个原因。 我不理解 large artificial satellites和nonfunctioning satellites在题目中是否可以指同一个东西。 以及我读到的信息对吗，如果读成这样，可以做出题目来吗？ 谢谢。

请问老师，C错在哪？

这一类型的题目，原文比较长，如何剔除细节部分，怎样快速分析原文想说的是什么，也就是快速概括能力，比如P和C各是什么？下去如何自己练习。谢谢~~~

划线类的逻辑题，与常规的逻辑做题思路一样还是只看划线部分的前一句，记得老管上课时讲过一个题，是GMAT10里的12题，也是逻辑划线句补充，好像说的是看划线句前面那呢。。。 Which of the following most logically completes the argument below? Although the number of large artificial satellites orbiting the Earth is small compared to the number of small pieces of debris in orbit, the large satellites interfere more seriously with telescope observations because of the strong reflections they produce. Because many of those large satellites have ceased to function, the proposal has recently been made to eliminate interference from nonfunctioning satellites by exploding them in space. This proposal, however, is ill conceived, since _______. many nonfunctioning satellites remain in orbit for years for satellites that have ceased to function, repairing them while they are in orbit would be prohibitively expensive there are no known previous instances of satellites' having been exploded on purpose the only way to make telescope observations without any interference from debris in orbit is to use telescopes launched into extremely high orbits around the Earth a greatly increased number of small particles in Earth's orbit would result in a blanket of reflections that would make certain valuable telescope observations impossible --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

感觉D项也是驳斥了原文的方法，因为D说唯一的方式是什么，否定了原文提出的方式。这种理解为什么不对？麻烦老师讲讲

请老师帮助解惑，谢谢 首先，原文说weaken,也就是说选哪个就不炸卫星。D说只有调整望远镜才行，那干嘛还炸呢？而且我读原文的时候就是认为这望远镜一直被人举着呢，他说这望远镜得放到更高的轨道去，那当然就跟炸不炸卫星无关了。 第二，E说的是有个什么东西的影响造成了望远镜不work. 那原文只说那些卫星影响了望远镜不work,所以要炸。也许是有很多因素影响望远镜不work,但是从原文来讲，我把卫星炸了至少消灭一样因素，炸了不一定行，不炸肯定不行啊。万一炸了能把E说得也解决了呢。。。 Which of the following most logically completes the argument below? Although the number of large artificial satellites orbiting the Earth is small compared to the number of small pieces of debris in orbit, the large satellites interfere more seriously with telescope observations because of the strong reflections they produce. Because many of those large satellites have ceased to function, the proposal has recently been made to eliminate interference from nonfunctioning satellites by exploding them in space. This proposal, however, is ill conceived, since _______. A. many nonfunctioning satellites remain in orbit for years B. for satellites that have ceased to function, repairing them while they are in orbit would be prohibitively expensive C. there are no known previous instances of satellites' having been exploded on purpose D. the only way to make telescope observations without any interference from debris in orbit is to use telescopes launched into extremely high orbits around the Earth E. a greatly increased number of small particles in Earth's orbit would result in a blanket of reflections that would make certain valuable telescope observations impossible

D 选项说唯一的方法是发射t到更远的轨道，因此排除了题目说的爆炸t 这一个提议，所以我认为是weaken F 选项说大量小碎片会阻碍远距离的观察，但是原文并没有说爆炸t会产生小碎片，所以我觉得不太好 综上所述，我选d 但是答案是e 是不是逻辑题里没一点信息都是不会多于的，既然原文有讲到碎片（虽然没讲爆炸会产生碎片），是不是表明爆炸和碎片是有关的，否则原文可以不提碎片的内容？