[Critical Reasoning]
试题详情
题目:
In light of the further information, which of the following, if true, does most to explain the result that followed implementation of the plan?
| Line | Biologists have advanced two theories to explain |
| why schooling of fish occurs in so many fish species. | |
| Because schooling is particularly widespread among | |
| species of small fish, both theories assume that | |
| (5) | schooling offers the advantage of some protection |
| from predators. | |
| Proponents of theory A dispute the assumption | |
| that a school of thousands of fish is highly visible. | |
| Experiments have shown that any fish can be seen, | |
| (10) | even in very clear water, only within a sphere of 200 |
| meters in diameter. When fish are in a compact group, | |
| the spheres of visibility overlap. Thus the chance of | |
| a predator finding the school is only slightly greater | |
| than the chance of the predator finding a single fish | |
| (15) | swimming alone. Schooling is advantageous to the |
| individual fish because a predators chance of finding | |
| any particular fish swimming in the school is much | |
| smaller than its chance of finding at least one of | |
| the same group of fish if the fish were dispersed | |
| (20) | throughout an area. |
| However, critics of theory A point out that some | |
| fish form schools even in areas where predators | |
| are abundant and thus little possibility of escaping | |
| detection exists. They argue that the school continues | |
| (25) | to be of value to its members even after detection. |
| They advocate theory B, the confusion effect, which | |
| can be explained in two different ways. | |
| Sometimes, proponents argue, predators simply | |
| cannot decide which fish to attack. This indecision | |
| (30) | supposedly results from a predators preference |
| for striking prey that is distinct from the rest of the | |
| school in appearance. In many schools the fish are | |
| almost identical in appearance, making it difficult for a | |
| predator to select one. The second explanation for | |
| (35) | the confusion effect has to do with the sensory |
| confusion caused by a large number of prey moving | |
| around the predator. Even if the predator | |
| makes the decision to attack a particular fish, | |
| the movement of other prey in the school can | |
| (40) | be distracting. The predators difficulty can |
| be compared to that of a tennis player trying | |
| to hit a tennis ball when two are approaching | |
| simultaneously. |
The North American moose's long legs enable it to move quickly through the woods, stepping easily over downed trees, but predators pursuing it must leap or go around them.
Which of the following most logically completes the passage?
Leaf beetles damage willow trees by stripping away their leaves, but a combination of parasites and predators generally keeps populations of these beetles in check. Researchers have found that severe air pollution results in reduced predator populations. The parasites, by contrast, are not adversely affected by pollution; nevertheless, the researchers' discovery probably does explain why leaf beetles cause particularly severe damage to willows in areas with severe air pollution, since __________.
| Line | In 1971 researchers hoping to predict earthquakes in |
| the short term by identifying precursory phenomena | |
| (those that occur a few days before large quakes | |
| but not otherwise) turned their attention to changes | |
| (5) | in seismic waves that had been detected prior to |
| earthquakes. An explanation for such changes was | |
| offered by “dilatancy theory,” based on a well-known | |
| phenomenon observed in rocks in the laboratory: | |
| as stress builds, microfractures in rock close, | |
| (10) | decreasing the rock’s volume. But as stress |
| continues to increase, the rock begins to crack and | |
| expand in volume, allowing groundwater to seep in, | |
| weakening the rock. According to this theory, such | |
| effects could lead to several precursory phenomena in | |
| (15) | the field, including a change in the velocity of seismic |
| waves, and an increase in small, nearby tremors. | |
| Researchers initially reported success in identifying | |
| these possible precursors, but subsequent analyses | |
| of their data proved disheartening. Seismic waves | |
| (20) | with unusual velocities were recorded before some |
| earthquakes, but while the historical record confirms | |
| that most large earthquakes are preceded by minor | |
| tremors, these foreshocks indicate nothing about | |
| the magnitude of an impending quake and are | |
| (25) | indistinguishable from other minor tremors that occur |
| without large earthquakes. | |
| In the 1980s, some researchers turned their | |
| efforts from short-term to long-term prediction. | |
| Noting that earthquakes tend to occur repeatedly in | |
| (30) | certain regions, Lindh and Baker attempted to identify |
| patterns of recurrence, or earthquake cycles, on which | |
| to base predictions. In a study of earthquake-prone | |
| sites along the San Andreas Fault, they determined | |
| that quakes occurred at intervals of approximately 22 | |
| (35) | years near one site and concluded that there was a |
| 95 percent probability of an earthquake in that area | |
| by 1992. The earthquake did not occur within the time | |
| frame predicted, however. | |
| Evidence against the kind of regular | |
| (40) | earthquake cycles that Lindh and Baker tried |
| to establish has come from a relatively new | |
| field, paleoseismology. Paleoseismologists | |
| have unearthed and dated geological features | |
| such as fault scarps that were caused by | |
| (45) | earthquakes thousands of years ago. They have |
| determined that the average interval between ten | |
| earthquakes that took place at one site along the | |
| San Andreas Fault in the past two millennia was | |
| 132 years, but individual intervals ranged greatly, | |
| (50) | from 44 to 332 years. |
The author implies which of the following about the ability of the researchers mentioned in line 18 to predict earthquakes?