※ 引述《Diablotin (咕嚕咕嚕)》之銘言： : 126. The public is well aware that high blood cholesterol levels raise the : risk of stroke caused by blood clots, but a recent report concludes that : people with low blood cholesterol levels are at increased risk of the other : lethal type of stroke---cerebral hemorrhage, caused when a brain artery busts. The report suggests that because blood cholesterol plays a vita role in maintaining cell membranes, low blood cholesterol weakens artery walls, making them prone to rupture. The conclusion thus supports a : long-standing contention by Japanese researchers that Western diets better : protect against cerebral hemorrhage than do non-Western diets. : The argument is based on which one of the following assumption? : (A) Western diets are healthier than non-Western diets. : (B) Western diets result in higher blood cholesterol levels than do : non-Western diets. : (C) High blood cholesterol levels preclude the weakening of artery walls. : (D) Cerebral hemorrhages are more dangerous than strokes caused by blood clots. : (E) People who have low blood pressure are at increased risk of cerebral hemorrhage. : 答案是B,因為文章中沒有把飲食與高血脂連起來,這個我同意 : 可是我選C, : 因為我以為題目並沒有講清楚高血脂與c病是不是完全沒關連 : 因為題目說血脂是一個重要的因素而已阿.... : 哪位大大幫我解惑一下 謝謝你！ hi~ 做假設題常常會有很多迷惑選項，但是重要的是要分清題幹中的"事實"跟"結論"， assumption的作用就是起了一個"支持結論"的作用，也就是說沒有這個假設， 結論就無法成立。所以才會有否定weaken的這種做法。 基本上: 假設題就Two大或是lawyer等等大牛的總結中都有提過，有兩種做法 1.填補缺口 2.否定weaken 私以為此題應該是兩種做法都可以^^，但我prefer以"否定weaken"來解題 此題的題幹中: 事實: 高血脂--stroke by blood clots 低血脂--storke by cerebral hemorrhae(腦出血) 結論: 西方飲食比起非西方飲食，較能預防腦出血 選項中: 明顯的BC答案的確很糾結，分開來看 B) 否定後，西方飲食比起非西方飲食，"不會造成"比較高的血脂 --> 意即" 西方飲食比起西方飲食，相對的造成血脂程度是較低的" --> 那不就說明了結論說"西方飲食比較不會腦出血"是錯誤的! --> 否定weaken後，確認B為正解 C) 答案意思:高血脂排除了破壞血管壁的可能 --> 否定後，高血脂不排除有破壞血管壁的可能(也就是高血脂也有可能跟 低血脂一樣會weaken cerebral walls) --> 這頂多只能說，哎喲，原來高血脂跟低血脂一樣有可能造成腦出血，僅此而已 --> 跟結論是扯不上邊的囉 以上是敝人的一些淺見，open to discuss~^^~ -- --

※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 140.112.4.234