Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/formosam/public_html/phpBB3/includes/bbcode.php on line 112
FormosaMBA 傷心咖啡店 • 檢視主題 - [問題]GWD 21-03

[問題]GWD 21-03

邏輯思維的訓練,考試戰場上的對決

版主: shpassion, Traver0818

[問題]GWD 21-03

文章FionaV » 2005-12-16 10:21

Highway Official: When resurfacing our concrete bridges, we should use electrically conductive concrete (ECC) rather than standard
concrete. In the winter, ECC can be heated by passing an electric current through it, thereby preventing ice buildup. The cost of the electricity needed is substantially lower than the cost of the de-icing salt we currently use.

Taxpayer: But construction costs for ECC are much higher than for standard concrete, so your proposal is probably
not justifiable on economic grounds.

Which of the following, if true, could best be used to support the highway official’s proposal in the face of taxpayer’s objection?

A. The use of de-icing salt causes corrosion of the reinforcing steel in concrete bridge decks and damage to the concrete itself, thereby considerably shortening the useful life of concrete bridges.
B. Severe icing conditions can cause power outages and slow down the work of emergency crews trying to get power restored.
C. In weather conditions conducive to icing, ice generally forms on the concrete surfaces of bridges well before it forms on parts
of the roadway that go over solid ground.
D. Aside from its potential use for de-icing bridges, ECC might also be an effective means of keeping other concrete structures such as parking garages and airport runways ice free.
E. If ECC were to be used for a bridge surface, the electric current would be turned on only at times at which ice was likely to form.

Ans: A

我做題時只刪除了BC 留下ADE
因為Taxpayer說ECC的成本太高 所以我覺得選E就可以解決這個問題 結果錯了... ;''(
可以教教我嗎?
FionaV
初級會員
初級會員
 
文章: 71
註冊時間: 2005-09-16 03:40

文章維尼 » 2005-12-16 10:28

E 勉強可以算是跟節省成本有些關係
可是A 就更強力囉
因為他說傳統材料配上傳統的灑鹽除冰法
會讓橋的壽命減短
所以這個成本一估進去 去新材料就比較好了
MBA Class of 2009, UCLA Anderson School of Management

With this faith, we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day. -- "I Have a Dream", Martin Luther King, Jr.
頭像
維尼
黃金會員
黃金會員
 
文章: 1194
註冊時間: 2005-02-21 17:41

文章Chris1 » 2006-11-25 14:00

先大概說一下我對原文的理解,

Highway Official說:我們應該使用electrically conductive concrete (ECC)不要用standard concrete,因為在冬天,ECC可以避免冰的增加,而且花在電力上的費用比較低,比起花在de-icing salt的費用.

Taxpayer反駁說:但是在construction costs上面,ECC卻是比standard concrete還要高的.

小弟我有個問題,
在選項A,確實針對於construction costs的方面削弱了taxpayer,但是我看不出來有支持Highway Official的地方耶???
題目問說"Which of the following, if true, could best be used to support the highway official’s proposal in the face of taxpayer’s objection?"
當初看到選項A就是因為看不出來有支持Highway Official的地方,但是他又可以很確實的削弱taxpayer的說法,猶豫了很久,結果就把它刪掉了.........就錯了........真鬱悶..........
希望大家把我打醒吧~~~~~~
Chris1
初級會員
初級會員
 
文章: 24
註冊時間: 2005-12-11 00:27

文章fsab00037748 » 2006-11-25 16:57

題目問說"Which of the following if true, could best be used to support the highway official’s proposal in the face of taxpayer’s objection?"

重點在幫助High way Official “in the face of taxpayer’s objection”



也就是說支持ECC好有很多種陳述(D也是在講ECC好),
但這時tax payer 攻擊Highway Offical的是EEC's construction costs高 ,
在這點的反駁上 (A)比(E) 好很多


希望有解釋到你的困惑:)
頭像
fsab00037748
中級會員
中級會員
 
文章: 156
註冊時間: 2006-02-17 13:30

文章Chris1 » 2006-11-26 09:55

您的這句話,重點在幫助High way Official “in the face of taxpayer’s objection”
真的是一語驚醒龜毛人阿~~~
我實在太愛專牛角尖了,
希望我在考試的時候可以用博愛和大愛的角度來作題目!!!
感謝f小姐^^(請原諒我把您的稱號後幾碼給省略)
Chris1
初級會員
初級會員
 
文章: 24
註冊時間: 2005-12-11 00:27

文章fsab00037748 » 2006-11-26 12:44

hahaha...你很搞笑耶~ 博愛和大愛的角度...嗯嗯...窩彌陀佛啊..
頭像
fsab00037748
中級會員
中級會員
 
文章: 156
註冊時間: 2006-02-17 13:30


回到 GMAT Critical Reasoning 考區

誰在線上

正在瀏覽這個版面的使用者:沒有註冊會員 和 3 位訪客