[問題]gwd-7-5

[fiona]

護士增加並不一定就有比較多的病人可以看
這兩者是沒有正相關的
所以A不妥囉
請參考

[lunar916]

護士增加並不一定就有比較多的病人可以看
這兩者是沒有正相關的
所以A不妥囉
請參考

阿... 看錯.. 我看成"學生"沒有變少...
昏.... ><

[維尼]

請問A有何不妥??
我覺得A跟C感覺滿像的...

護士數目減少跟通報數量減少不一定相關

[oguz]

做假設題到現在,
有一個小小心得...不用隨著題目多繞幾個圈去思考,直接選項取非去看最快..
C. Children who have allergic reactions to the chemicals are not more likely to be sent to a school nurse now than they were ten years ago.
取非後=>較可能送去=>結論成立不足

之前看過有人討論assumption取非的用法，想再問更清楚一點:
若此選項取非後不能推導出結論者，此即為答案
以此題為例
C選項取非後，看不出來與結論有何關係耶
就是因為這樣所以才選嗎?
還是.....
有時候都不知道自己用的對不對....

[winihsi]

我這樣翻譯看你們覺得怎麼樣

Children who have allergic reactions to the chemicals are not more likely to be sent to a school nurse now than they were ten years ago.

就是現在對這些化學品過敏的小孩被送去保健室的機率,不會比十年前過敏的小孩被送去的機率高...也就是說,有可能現在的老師一看到小孩過敏,馬上送到保健室,而十年前,有些過敏小孩可能會忍,就算過敏,也沒有到保健室治療

[hccill]

請問各位大大,

(D)(E)錯在哪呢?

還是給他搞不懂說~

[pure822]

(D)The chemicals are not commonly used as cleaners or pesticides "in houses and apartment buildings" in Renston..and so what? out of scope,the question is focus on the "school"
(E)if Children attending elementary school account for a larger proportion of Renston’s population now than they did ten years ago,then we can't conclude that a larger propotion of schoolchildren who have allergic reaction now is due to either greater quantities of the chemicals, or more sensitive to chemicals.We can conclude that the more school children are there now, the more posibility of allergic reaction are there.

[joyce0519]

請問A有何不妥??
我覺得A跟C感覺滿像的...

護士人數的多寡和假設應該沒關係,假設是建立在孩童和化學藥劑間的關係喔


希望這樣有幫到你~~

[a1720033888]

為什麼不是(D)
The chemicals are not commonly used as clearners or pesticides in house and apartment buildings in Renston

我的解讀是說~因為化學藥劑沒被廣泛使用在其他地方，那小孩子的過敏反應才會是在學校發生，而現在所增加的過敏兒童(在學校的)發現才會是接觸到比較多的化學藥劑或比較敏感

[mandy-lo]

GWD-7-5
結論是:要不就是R’s學童接觸大量這類化學劑,要不就是他們比十年前的學童更易於過敏

找assumption?

A－看到nurses的數量多寡就可刪了,因為主題明顯不對
B－對這化學過敏的小孩與其他小孩對其他物質的比較也無關
C－推樓上Café大大精彩解說…..講的真清楚!!!!
D－化學劑用在哪也無關,即使化學劑全部用在學校,那小孩會不會大量接觸也未知?
E－現在上國小的孩子與他們10年前相比構不構成最大比例→與主題對chemical過敏或有無接觸，totally I.r