TTGWD4-Q27

[hcgh]

TTGWD4-Q27
In parts of the Caribbean, the manatee, an endangered marine mammal, has long been hunted for its meat. Having noted the manatee hunters’ expert knowledge of manatees’ habits, local conservationists are encouraging the hunters to stop hunting and instead to take tourists on boat rides to see manatees. Tourist interest is high, so the plan has promise of achieving the twin goals of giving the former hunters a good income and helping ensure the manatees’ survival.

Which of the following, if true, raises the most serious doubt about the plan’s chance of success?

A. Many tourists who visit these parts of the Caribbean are uninterested in manatees and would not be willing to pay what the former manatee hunters would have to charge for boat rides to see manatees.
B. Recovery of the species would enable some hunting to continue without putting the manatees’ survival in jeopardy again.
C. In areas where manatees have traditionally been hunted for food, local people could easily replace the manatee meat in their diets with other foods obtained from the sea.
D. There would not be enough former manatee hunters to act as guides for all the tourists who want to see manatees.
E. To maintain their current income, manatee hunters who switched to guiding tourists would have to use far larger boats and make many more trips into the manatees’ fragile habitat than they currently do.

我選A, 但是答案是E, whywhy??
題目的結論是Tourist interest is high -> achieving the twin goals of giving the former hunters a good income and helping ensure the manatees’ survival.
A否定因之正確性，所以原命題根本就不會成立，滿不錯的耶。
E說hunter會開大船且常去manatees’ habitat. 但題目並沒有說常去habitat會影響manatees' survival啊
請問我那裡錯了？？
謝謝

[crossover45]

恩 我想Tourist interest is high 的原因是因為可以看manatee吧
若是如E所說，hunter的船會常常跑去manatee's fragile habitat，則manatee可能會受影響變少。如此一來反而達不到吸引遊客的想法。這題我今天剛好做過，本來也想選A，但是看到E才發現A是一個混淆選項，因為E更直接有力的反駁了原命題Tourist interest is high的初衷。

[hcgh]

唔...原來E是fragile在搞怪啊，同意E是答案。

但是A那裡不好呢？
遊客沒興趣，則hunter就不會去當導遊，
這個計劃就失敗了啊

[crossover45]

我想A跟E都是可能的答案，但是我認為E是最好的答案，因為原命題的plan有兩個:1.增加hunter收入，2.確保manatee的生存。E一口氣就counter了這兩個plan。再來看A的話，因為原文有說Tourist interest is high，所以我覺得A有點跟原命題牴觸了，還有就是Many tourists who...並未確定不願意付錢遊客的範圍，我們不知道他們的影響有多大，所以E比A好。若是他說"Most tourist"的話，則這題還有得討論了....
一點個人想法啦，期待看到其他朋友的意見。

[hcgh]

我想A跟E都是可能的答案，但是我認為E是最好的答案，因為原命題的plan有兩個:1.增加hunter收入，2.確保manatee的生存。E一口氣就counter了這兩個plan。再來看A的話，因為原文有說Tourist interest is high，所以我覺得A有點跟原命題牴觸了，還有就是Many tourists who...並未確定不願意付錢遊客的範圍，我們不知道他們的影響有多大，所以E比A好。若是他說"Most tourist"的話，則這題還有得討論了....
一點個人想法啦，期待看到其他朋友的意見。

若著眼於原命題有兩個plan的話，那麼E就不如A了
E counter 2.確保manatee的生存
但是卻support 1.增加hunter收入

至於A呢
題目有說
Which of the following, if true, raises the most serious doubt about the plan’s chance of success?
所以當考慮A時，A就一定是事實，沒有與原命題牴觸之疑慮
可以把A解釋成tourist原本的興趣很高，但當他們要參觀時，就顯得一點興趣都沒有
many在longman上的解釋是 a large number of people or things, 當然沒有most好，但是應該也很有說服力了吧。
原命題是Tourist interest is high -> achieving the twin goals
A把原來所假設的前題都否定掉了，當然整個命題就垮了
就達到raises the most serious doubt about the plan’s chance of success
我還是覺得A很好耶，要麼辦....~~~

[chris8888]

遊客興趣很高是條件, 在此計劃當中的, 題目要你去推翻這計畫會失敗, 不是要你推翻這計劃裡面的假設有問題.

所以A錯,

比方說, 經調查大家都喜歡看熊貓, 所以引進熊貓在動物園必可以招攬較多的遊客, 此計劃怎樣會失敗? 結果你卻說大家都不喜歡熊貓就會失敗? 哇咧! 我要你去想出失敗的可能性根據我給的資訊, 你卻推翻我的資訊, 我沒說我的資訊100%一定對, 但是請先回答我的問題, 至於我的資訊對不對是另外一個議題

簡單說這不是"推論(根據資訊用推理出來的)"這是"批判(題目資訊不出充分)"作者資訊來源錯誤, 換句話說就是沒有回答出題者, 達非所問的意思. 課堂討論可以這樣, 但這是考是無法大量互動, 請針對題目回答問題