GWD24-35

[bear]

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.

@.@
答案e , 我選B..... 而且我還認為E 是weaken .....

是我昏了頭嗎 ???
pls help me!

[micht]

我的看法是...

in order to support an experiement result,
we must exclude other side effects!

mammal(cannabinoids) → receptor
To test cannabinoids's function

inject chemical → newborn mice→ Low appetite

The conclusion will not hold without the assumption.

E) The chemical that blocks cannabinoids from stimulating their brain receptors does not independently inhibit the appetite

injected chemical independently inhibit the appetite 而非cannabinoids造成的...也就是說

injected chemical 自己不會inhibit the appetite 只會 block cannabinoides from reaching their receptors in the brain

B)Cannabinoids are the only substances in mammals’ milk that stimulate the appetite.
取反, Cannabionid 不是唯一的substances that stimulate the appetite
實驗指出...inject chemical that block cannabionid 會造成Low appetite因此結論是Cannabionid的確stimulates the appetite

B不是Assumption 因為題目已經確實指出the chemical BLOCK ONLY Cannabinoids 沒說會block其他substances...
所以造成Low appetite的原因必然是因為 cannabionid被block住的原因
因為其他substances都沒受到此chemical的影響正常運作

有誤請指證~~ :P

[dock]

(Y) micht姐
我想法跟妳一致

[td91]

可是若B選項取非,代表還有Cannabinoids以外的物質可以刺激食慾, 那不就得不出結果The injected mice showed far less interest in feeding 了嗎??

再討論囉.....

[世界和平]

可是若B選項取非,代表還有Cannabinoids以外的物質可以刺激食慾, 那不就得不出結果The injected mice showed far less interest in feeding 了嗎??

再討論囉.....

Dear td91,

B選項取非，還是可以得出題目結論。因為無論實驗組或對照組都有吃到Can-以外的物質(也就是無論有無注射化學物質，都有吃到Can-以外的物質)，根據題目所述有注射的則會無食慾。

歡迎討論。

[evelight]

選E是排除他因。

有題gwd講鎮靜劑對犀牛的受精率的影響
跟這題也很像

[clio]

原文要判定的主角是cannabinoids是否阻斷食慾，因此必須控制其他變因"不會阻斷
食慾"，而這個被注射進入老鼠體內的chemical必須被控制為"不會阻斷食慾"。如果這
變因未能控制，那麼可能阻斷食慾的因素就有兩個了（此chemical與cannabinoids），
又怎能得出原文的結論：一定是cannabinoids呢？

[Lory]

原文要判定的主角是cannabinoids是否阻斷食慾，因此必須控制其他變因"不會阻斷
食慾"，而這個被注射進入老鼠體內的chemical必須被控制為"不會阻斷食慾"。如果這
變因未能控制，那麼可能阻斷食慾的因素就有兩個了（此chemical與cannabinoids），
又怎能得出原文的結論：一定是cannabinoids呢？

對對對，200%的精華都被你說完囉!!!!!

大家這題可以參考clio的想法喔!!! 馬上就懂!!!!

我補充一下，其實是(E)的後半句比較繞!!!說injected 的chemical do not independently inhibit the appetite ::::該化學物質非單獨阻礙小鼠的食慾，因此換句話說，間接引導出結論，的確C物質會影響小鼠的食慾，且告訴我們化學物質不會影響小鼠的食慾。

[FiscJanet]

可是若B選項取非,代表還有Cannabinoids以外的物質可以刺激食慾, 那不就得不出結果The injected mice showed far less interest in feeding 了嗎??

再討論囉.....

Dear td91,

B選項取非，還是可以得出題目結論。因為無論實驗組或對照組都有吃到Can-以外的物質(也就是無論有無注射化學物質，都有吃到Can-以外的物質)，根據題目所述有注射的則會無食慾。

歡迎討論。

我可以接受e選項，但我還是想要問一下b選項取非，為何可以導出結果？
因為如果Can-非唯一可以刺激食慾的東西的話，那有注射chemical的
mice跟沒有注射chemical的mice的食慾不就是都不受到影響嗎？

不知道我是不是哪裡沒有想通？
請哪一位高手幫忙解惑！謝謝！

[3ch]

如果選項(B)成立:Cannabinoids are the only substances in mammals’ milk that stimulate the appetite, 那老鼠就應該不會有任何有食慾的反應,但是題目說:The injected mice showed" far less" interest in feeding than normal newborn mice do. far less 代表還有一點點反應.所以(B)不能成為這個issue的假設

[gaspper]

看過諸公的討論之後，個人更認為 ( B )才是正確答案。

E)The chemical that blocks cannabinoids from stimulating their brain receptors does not independently inhibit the appetite.

=>independently 不等於 directly. 不獨立只是代表與某件事物"有關"。
也不代表此 chemical 不影響食慾。除非文章是用 directly。
這樣clio所提的意思才存在。故 (E) X.

B)Cannabinoids are the only substances in mammals’ milk that stimulate the appetite

1.文章已經說是 "far less interest". 代表非常顯著。不一定要完全阻斷。請問打麻醉之後你就完全沒知覺了嗎 ? 至少也要高劑量才做得到吧 !! 故 3ch 的說法並不足以否定 (B)。
2.若將B 加上否定之後變成 ：cannabinoids are the only substances in mammals’ milk that stimulate the appetite.
實驗變因既然無法控制，牛奶中有超過一種以上的ingredients 會 stimulate appetite, 那你怎麼知道 the chemical 到底是怎麼減低食慾的 ?
實驗結果老鼠沒食慾可能是與阻斷 cannabinoids 有關，也可能無關。

故答案 (B) 正確。

[raikennon]

E)The chemical that blocks cannabinoids from stimulating their brain receptors does not independently inhibit the appetite.

E取非,The chemical that blocks cannabinoids from stimulating their brain receptors does independently inhibit the appetite.
我覺得這句話的意思是,那個阻斷c物質的化學物可以單獨抑制食欲,如果e選項成立,那題目所推得的Therefore, cannabinoids probably function to stimulate the appetite. 這句話就沒有根據了,也就是沒有因那來的果呢?

B取非
B)Cannabinoids are "not" the only substances in mammals’ milk that stimulate the appetite.
雖然它並非唯一,但的確它有可能是題目所說cannabinoids "probably" function to stimulate the appetite.
題目說的是probably,因此b選項沒有辦法阻斷沒此因就沒此果
相較e來說,b就比較沒那麼好
正式考試時assumption的題目可能都會有3,4題通常答案選項中都會有類似的干擾選項,取非是個很不錯的方法,提供給你參考
open to discuss

[sevenmao]

我的理解是

E)排除它因
如果注射入的chemical會inhibit食慾的話,那C的功效就不一定成立了

但我還是不了解選項B呀
可能是太斷定了吧,帶入不會帶入"大概"字眼的conclusion

[acharlie]

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.

@.@
答案e , 我選B..... 而且我還認為E 是weaken .....

是我昏了頭嗎 ???
pls help me!

我覺得是 第一句:cannabinoids---->刺激receptors
第二句:chemical---->阻絕cannabinoids
第三句:chemical---->老鼠食慾降低
結論:cannabinoids-->可能會刺激食慾

(E)說chemical 無法單獨的阻止食慾
取非:chemical 可以單獨阻止食慾
假若chemical可單獨阻止食慾,那結論:cannabinoids-->可能會刺激食慾
就不會是對的,因為變的有兩樣東西都會影響食慾

(B)Cannabinoids是only的物質在哺乳動物的奶中會刺激食慾
取非Cannabinoids並非唯一的物質在哺乳動物的奶中會刺激食慾(表示還有其他物質也會刺激食慾)
那結論就推不出來,因為文章只有提到Cannabinoids並沒有提到其他的物質
此外,像是答案中有類似only這種武斷的答案通常都得要注意
因為錯的機率滿大的,加上個人認為assumption的題目中
要文章中提到的東西應該都得要包含在裡頭,才會使得assumption完整
-------
個人意見

[pvdpvdpvd]

B選項看起來像是結論 不是假設
假設表示一定對的事實
如果在做實驗前 必定會存在的事實是 C是唯一的可以刺激食慾的物質
竊以為實驗就不用做了