GWD 2 Q10

[acharlie]

B絕對是錯的

B.Challenging an assumption that certain desirable outcome is outweighed by negative aspects associated with producing that outcome

重點是在於
A is outweighed by B

同意B是錯的,
B.Challenging an assumption that certain desirable outcome --->希望的結果:吸引外來的人,對當地人有經濟助益

is outweighed by
negative aspects--->就是環境污染了
associated with producing that outcome

變成是經濟助益的效小於環境污染...這應該是環境學者的假設吧,並非
business spokesperson的假設

E.Denying that an effect
(that the spokesperson presents as having benefited a certain group of people -----> 帶來人潮給當地居民)
actually benefited those people--->對當地居民有幫助

E.的答案簡單說,
就是反對這樣的措施會對當地居民有幫助....恩~~符合環境學家的論點

----------------
這題真的是考閱讀..>_<

[Darrence]

acharlie大 真是一語驚醒夢中人阿

B 是說 環境學家在 challenge 自己的assumption

但是環境學家要 challenge 的是 business spokeperson 的assumption才對

所以 B 當然是錯誤的答案

[pimi]

請問A選項中的one set of circumstances要怎麼翻譯呢??

[dibert8]

應該是"一組狀況"吧!
看到這個 one set ,我就回去看題目有沒有 other sets? 沒有,就不會選它了.

[dibert8]

讀了諸位先進的解釋之後,發現 (B) 錯三個地方:
1. challenge an assumption that ... -- 那不是在反對 that 子句的內容?
2. spokesperson 應該不是作 assumption
3. be outweighed -- 不是打折扣而已,是整個翻過來, environmentalist 的反證還不至於把 spokesperson 的主張由正變成負(i.e. 居民蒙受經濟損失;少賺<>賠錢).

(E) 比較切題:
1. effect 用詞恰當
2. a certain group of people = many local residents 題目沒有把受益的族群說死(e.g. 全村民),選項也依樣回應.

[dibert8]

把 (B) 類推一下,比較像是 spokesman 反駁 enviromentalist 所使用的方法: certain desirable outcome outweighed negative aspects associated with reducing that outcome

[hwatai]

環境學者：Snowmobiling → noise & pollution
商人　　：Snowmobiling → Financial Benefits

環境學者：Snowmobiling → noise & pollution → no Financial benefits

(E)很清楚了，(B)的assumption內容的確像是環境學者自己的立場，不是商人的立場