※ 引述《lovekyoko (匹茲堡的天空)》之銘言： : 24-35: The milk of many mammals contains cannabinoids, substances that are : known to stimulate certain receptors in the brain. To investigate the : function of cannabinoids, researchers injected newborn mice with a chemical : that is known to block cannabinoides from reaching their receptors in the : brain. The injected mice showed far less interest in feeding than normal : newborn mice do. Therefore, cannabinoids probably function to stimulate the : appetite. : Which of the following is an assumption ok which the argument depends? : A)Newborn mice do not normally ingest any substance other than their mothers’ : milk. : B)Cannabinoids are the only substances in mammals’ milk that stimulate the : appetite. : C)The mothers of newborn mice do not normally make any effort to encourage : their babies to feed. : D)The mild of mammals would be less nutritious if it did not contain : cannabinoids. : E)The chemical that blocks cannabinoids from stimulating their brain : receptors does not independently inhibit the appetite. : 我被B跟E給迷惑了 : B取非 還有其他的物質可以刺激食慾 : E取非 這化學物質可以獨立的抑制食欲 : 請問BE取非有反駁節論嗎 我覺得都沒有耶 : 答案是E : 謝 E取非有反駁結論 E取非的意思代表的是 食慾被抑制 不是因為cannabinoids被block 而是因為這個後來注射的化學物質本身就會抑制食慾 使得食慾跟cannabinoids之間的關連被打斷 因此會反駁cannabinoids有刺激食慾效用的結論 B取非則沒有辦法明確的反駁。 「可能有其他物質能刺激食慾」 這句話代表的是 可能後來注射的化學物質block的是那一些其他物質 使得食慾下降 但是在這邊仍然無法明確的知道 究竟cannabinoids有沒有刺激食慾的功用 --

※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 61.216.0.208