※ 引述《pringless (pringles~*)》之銘言： : 44. Although the prevailing supposition has been that it is too hot for : microorganisms to survive deep below the Earth's surface, some scientists : argue that there are living communities of microorganisms there that have : been cut off from surface life for millions of years. These scientists base : their argument on the discovery of living microorganisms in samples of : material that were taken from holes drilled as deep as 1.74 miles. : The scientists' argument depends on which of the following assumptions? : (B)No holes have been drilled into the Earth's surface to a distance deeper : than 1.74 miles. : (C)The microorganisms did not come from surface soil that came into contact : with the drilling equipment. : 正確答案是（C） 想請問一下(B)把NO拿掉變成有發現比1.74更深的洞 不是反駁原文 : 說因為深層太熱所以沒辦法存活嗎？ 那為什麼不能當假設阿 原文說深達 1.74Mile 的地方有細菌，所以證明細菌存在於地下 深處。 而把NO拿掉，代表有洞 ＞＝1.74Mile,而還找得到細菌，那更證明 地下深處有細菌，沒有反駁原文，反而是支持，所以加上 NO 並沒 有成為「反駁的反駁」，所以不能當假設。 : 50. To produce seeds, plants must first produce flowers. Two kinds of : tarragon plants, Russian tarragon and French tarragon, look very similar : except that Russian tarragon produces flowers and French tarragon does not. : The leaves of Russian tarragon, however, lack the distinctive flavor that : makes French tarragon a desirable culinary herb. : If the information presented is true, which of the following can most : reliably be concluded on the basis of it? : (C)Plants that grow from seeds sold in a packet labeled "tarragon" are not : French tarragon. : (E)Garden plants that have flavorful leaves generally do not produce : flowers. : 為什麼(E)不對呀？ R有花=>不香 F沒有花=>不香 不是滿合理的推測嗎....=___= 原文的花只有 tarragon，而（E）答案說的是「所有的 garden plants」 所以若選（E）則會「從部分例子推整體」而犯了歸納的錯。 : 另外 我有點不懂來欣謝老師的他因 複因欸^^" : 像51. New regulations in Mullentown require manufacturers there to develop : five-year pollution-reduction plans. The regulations require that each : manufacturer develop a detailed plan for reducing its released pollutants by : at least 50 percent. Clearly, the regulations will not result in significant : ^^^^^^^^ : pollution reduction, however, since the regulations do not force : manufacturers to implement their plans. : Which of the following, if true, most weakens the argument? : 這題我原本想說是will 所以代表結果為發生=>推翻果 用複因 : 但是解析是說另有他因可造成此結果 讓我有點搞混他因跟複因的使用時機跟方法了 : 請教各位牛人 幫忙指點迷津 謝謝！！>____<" 原文的「結果」是「不會導致」(will not result in)，而此「結果」 尚未發生，因此應該「推翻結果」，所以方法該為「複因」，因此加 入新原因後，會「導致」，而推翻了「原結果」。 根據原 po 所說， 看起來解析中所說的「他因可造成此結果」中的「結果」，似為「 significant pollution reduction」，而非「will not result in significant pollution reduction」，所以才會覺得弄反了。 此題應該還是用「複因」沒錯，而非用「他因」。 參考看看。 --

※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 220.133.109.4