还没有登录哦!

[Reading Comprehension]

试题详情

文章:

A recent study has provided clues to predator-prey dynamics in the late Pleistocene era.  Researchers compared the number of tooth fractures in present-day carnivores with tooth fractures in carnivores that lived 36,000 to 10,000 years ago and that were preserved in the Rancho La Brea tar pits in Los Angeles.  The breakage frequencies in the extinct species were strikingly higher than those in the present-day species.
 
In considering possible explanations for this finding, the researchers dismissed demographic bias because older individuals were not overrepresented in the fossil samples.  They rejected preservational bias because a total absence of breakage in two extinct species demonstrated that the fractures were not the result of abrasion within the pits.  They ruled out local bias because breakage data obtained from other Pleistocene sites were similar to the La Brea data.  The explanation they consider most plausible is behavioral differences between extinct and present-day carnivores--in particular, more contact between the teeth of predators and the bones of prey due to more thorough consumption of carcasses by the extinct species.  Such thorough carcass consumption implies to the researchers either that prey availability was low, at least seasonally, or that there was intense competition over kills and a high rate of carcass theft due to relatively high predator densities.

题目:

The primary purpose of the passage is to

选项:

A、present several explanations for a well-known fact
B、suggest alternative methods for resolving a debate
C、argue in favor of a controversial theory
D、question the methodology used in a study
E、discuss the implications of a research finding

答案:

E

提问:

张慧雯老师好,问一下怎么看出来第一二三段之间的关系?第二段只看第一句和最后一句话,会理解成有很多解释,然后有一个最有说服力的解释。然后第三段理解成了进一步说明这个最有说服力的解释imply的内容。AE之间怎么选择呢?

解答:

点赞2
阅读3704
解答: 张慧雯

提问:

张慧雯老师好,问一下怎么看出来第一二三段之间的关系?第二段只看第一句和最后一句话,会理解成有很多解释,然后有一个最有说服力的解释。然后第三段理解成了进一步说明这个最有说服力的解释imply的内容。AE之间怎么选择呢?

解答:

点赞2
阅读3705
解答: 张慧雯老师

提问:

我选了A 我认为这篇文章的主旨是一个研究提供了clue,研究者dismiss了偏见,研究者提出了自己的解释。请张慧雯老师解答。

解答:

点赞2
阅读3712
解答: 张慧雯老师

提问:

1.看完原文逻辑脉络,留下了A,E两个选项。 2.比选项差异,我把关注点留在了explanations和implications上,认为A选项说的是,对一个已知现象的解释;E说的是一个研究发现说明了什么。 3.根据第二段的逻辑脉络,“考虑到对这个发现的解释,科学家排除了什么,拒绝了什么,排除了什么,他们认为最有可能的解释是什么.”最后选了A. 4.虽然觉得A中的well-known fact不好,但是感觉A的整体意思比E好一些,故把E杀了。 请老师看看我这样思考哪里错在哪里了,十分感谢。

解答:

点赞-1
阅读3704
解答: sysadmin老师

提问:

选了A。看到原文第二段有什么explanation,就选了。 AE怎么比

解答:

点赞-1
阅读3710
解答: sysadmin老师

问个问题

点我领取
免费专项课程
在线咨询