Critical Reasoning

[Critical Reasoning] 试题详情

Because ethylene dibromide, a chemical used to fumigate grain, was blamed for the high rate of nerve damage suffered by people who work in grain-processing plants, many such plants switched to other chemical fumigants two years ago.  Since then, however, the percentage of workers at these plants who were newly diagnosed with nerve damage has not dropped significantly.  Therefore, either ethylene dibromide was wrongly blamed or else the new chemicals also cause nerve damage.
Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

Options:

If the new chemicals cause nerve damage, the nerve damage caused would be different from any nerve damage that ethylene dibromide may cause.
There are no chemical fumigants that are completely safe for workers in grain-processing plants.
If ethylene dibromide causes nerve damage, it does not take two years or longer for that damage to become detectable.
Workers at grain-processing plants typically continue to work there even after being diagnosed with nerve damage.
Workers at grain-processing plants that still use ethylene dibromide continue to have a high rate of nerve damage.

Correct:

C

Critical Reasoning

0评分
144浏览

[点此查看答疑][GWD]Critical Reasoning

如何用唐瑭老师教的,只读最后一句或最后两句话,解决这道题啊?
0评分
98浏览

[点此查看答疑][GWD]Critical Reasoning

B选项为什么错误?没有任何化学物质完全安全不就支持了这个argument 吗
0评分
92浏览

[点此查看答疑][GWD]Critical Reasoning

正确答案是C,我选的A,可以排除B,D,E
0评分
87浏览

[点此查看答疑][GWD]Critical Reasoning

既然D的意思是:工人诊断出神经损害是否继续工作的问题→ 这原文没提过 那么C的意思是:这ED导致伤害,多少时间会被诊断出 → 也算没提过啊! 以上我是临场的感觉,怎么老师一读,就说C提过,D没提过....求解?
-1评分
85浏览

[点此查看答疑][GWD]Critical Reasoning

原文结论是ED不是致病原因,C选项说不需要2年这么久就可以被检测出来,原文说是2年后检测出来了,好像在反驳原文结论啊,是在说ED可能是致病原因啊。C和原文结论的支持关系 看不懂。。。
0评分
79浏览

[点此查看答疑][GWD]Critical Reasoning

不明白正确选项;选线C的意思就是如果ED(农药)引起了nerve damage,则俩年之内会被查出;原文给出的newly diagnosed;但是原文说了the % of workers at these plants who were newly diagnosed with nerve damage has not dropped significantly; 他并没有指出newly 这个的时间限定范围;理解-如果说这个newly diagnosed指从规定实施之后,则ED引起了damage被陆续检测出来,无法证明ED是wrongly blamed,如果newly diagnosed指规定实施起的2年之后,则由ED引起的damage不算是newly diagnosed,而是早已经被发现的,若现在有newly diagnosed,则不是ED的锅;可以支持结论;另外结论either… or…这个意思说可能误会了ED,也可能新的化学物品产生Nerve damage;这个assumption 就说了反正产生nerve damage的原因肯定是这俩个之中的一个?选B可能扩大了范围,但是…C我感觉没懂
0评分
63浏览
0评分
57浏览

[点此查看答疑][GWD]Critical Reasoning

p和q是0到9之间的整数,pq组成一个两位的质数,例如p=2,q=3 pq=23. 问pq和qp之差为27,求p+q 我把所有两位数都列了出来,41 14 和74 47 都是符合的 这样就会有两个答案了。。怎么处理啊 还是题目有漏掉的条件?
0评分
144浏览

[点此查看答疑][GWD]Critical Reasoning

如何用唐瑭老师教的,只读最后一句或最后两句话,解决这道题啊?
0评分
98浏览

[点此查看答疑][GWD]Critical Reasoning

B选项为什么错误?没有任何化学物质完全安全不就支持了这个argument 吗
0评分
92浏览

[点此查看答疑][GWD]Critical Reasoning

正确答案是C,我选的A,可以排除B,D,E
0评分
87浏览

[点此查看答疑][GWD]Critical Reasoning

既然D的意思是:工人诊断出神经损害是否继续工作的问题→ 这原文没提过 那么C的意思是:这ED导致伤害,多少时间会被诊断出 → 也算没提过啊! 以上我是临场的感觉,怎么老师一读,就说C提过,D没提过....求解?
-1评分
85浏览

[点此查看答疑][GWD]Critical Reasoning

原文结论是ED不是致病原因,C选项说不需要2年这么久就可以被检测出来,原文说是2年后检测出来了,好像在反驳原文结论啊,是在说ED可能是致病原因啊。C和原文结论的支持关系 看不懂。。。
0评分
79浏览

[点此查看答疑][GWD]Critical Reasoning

不明白正确选项;选线C的意思就是如果ED(农药)引起了nerve damage,则俩年之内会被查出;原文给出的newly diagnosed;但是原文说了the % of workers at these plants who were newly diagnosed with nerve damage has not dropped significantly; 他并没有指出newly 这个的时间限定范围;理解-如果说这个newly diagnosed指从规定实施之后,则ED引起了damage被陆续检测出来,无法证明ED是wrongly blamed,如果newly diagnosed指规定实施起的2年之后,则由ED引起的damage不算是newly diagnosed,而是早已经被发现的,若现在有newly diagnosed,则不是ED的锅;可以支持结论;另外结论either… or…这个意思说可能误会了ED,也可能新的化学物品产生Nerve damage;这个assumption 就说了反正产生nerve damage的原因肯定是这俩个之中的一个?选B可能扩大了范围,但是…C我感觉没懂
0评分
63浏览
0评分
57浏览

[点此查看答疑][GWD]Critical Reasoning

p和q是0到9之间的整数,pq组成一个两位的质数,例如p=2,q=3 pq=23. 问pq和qp之差为27,求p+q 我把所有两位数都列了出来,41 14 和74 47 都是符合的 这样就会有两个答案了。。怎么处理啊 还是题目有漏掉的条件?

问个问题

点我领取
免费专项课程
在线咨询