查看: 2265|回复: 3

[问答] reading的一个问题 [复制链接]

Rank: 3 Rank: 3

声望: 0
寄托币: 664
注册时间: 2006-6-21
精华: 0
帖子: 73

发表于 2017-9-11 09:57:42 |显示全部楼层

Scientists formerly believed that the rocky planets—Earth, mercury, Venus, and Mars—were created by the rapid gravitational collapse of a dust cloud, a deflation giving rise to a dense orb. That view was challenged in the 1960s, when studies of Moon craters revealed that these craters were caused by the impact of objects that were in great abundance about 4.5 billion years ago but whose number appeared to have quickly decreased shortly thereafter. This observation rejuvenated Otto Schmidt’s 1994 theory of accretion. According to this theory, cosmic dust gradually lumped into ever- larger conglomerates: particulates, gravel, small and then larger balls, planetesimal (tiny planets), and ultimately, planets. As the planetesimals became larger, their numbers decreased. Consequently, the number of collisions between planetesimals decreased.

Consider each of the choices separately and select all that apply.
19. The passage provides evidence that Schmidt would be likely to disagree with the theory presented in the first sentence over
(A) the length of time it took for the rocky planets to form.
(B) the most likely causes of the Moon’s impact craters.
(C) the importance cosmic dust as a seminal material in planetary formation.

我个人认为A、B选项正确，正确答案是只有A。
我觉得：Schmidt认为是一个集聚的过程，而第一句说的是collapse理论，文中似乎无法推断出Schmit认为craters是因为collapse理论导致的，所以应该是不同意B观点的，所以应该选B。

相关帖子

回应

使用道具举报

singann
UID：3711457

初级会员

Rank: 3 Rank: 3

声望: 71
寄托币: 744
注册时间: 2016-4-18
精华: 0
帖子: 85

发表于 2017-9-11 11:00:17 |显示全部楼层

从逻辑上说，“’not mentioned“不能推出“disagree”吧

而且从文章意思上来看，crater（环形山）和碰撞是有关的，因为“the number of collisions between planetesimals decreased”，所以“craters were caused by the impact of objects that were in great abundance about 4.5 billion years ago but whose number appeared to have quickly decreased shortly thereafter”

使用道具举报

dreality
UID：2223599

初级会员

Rank: 3 Rank: 3

声望: 0
寄托币: 664
注册时间: 2006-6-21
精华: 0
帖子: 73

发表于 2017-9-11 11:55:57 |显示全部楼层

singann 发表于 2017-9-11 11:00
从逻辑上说，“’not mentioned“不能推出“disagree”吧

而且从文章意思上来看，crater（环形山）和碰撞 ...

后面的信息我觉得没问题，但我认为都不是第一句的collapse的相关信息。
由于题干中“disagree with the theory presented in the first sentence over”，强调了第一句中的理论，第一句的理论很简单，就是“the rapid gravitational collapse of a dust cloud”，无法知晓任何关于crater的信息。

当然，要是硬说没提到就不能disagree我倒是觉得也能说得通哈。

使用道具举报