[問題]天山 3-3

[mimieye]

我覺得E選項好像把題目的已知條件否定掉了耶
這樣否定題目前提的選項應該不會對的
我贊成選項B
題目說
用新種子只能少用一點點殺蟲劑
但是選項B說
如果這種作物的殺蟲劑跟一般殺蟲劑比起來要貴的話
那即使只能少用一點點也很值得換種新的品種啊
如果一瓶藥十萬塊 那少五瓶成本就省五十萬啦,值得換!
如果一瓶藥十塊錢 那少五瓶成本只省五十塊 不如不要換吧!
請指教!

[A級垂耳兔]

樓上的...支持你...加我一票...
這題有點爛....不過既然最後題目重點扯到benefit...economically...
這點扯到錢我想沒人會反對...
答案E只扯到了農藥用量...但是題幹說新品種用量只稍微小了一點...
就算以前用非常非常多...改新品種之後頂多變成用非常多...我和樓上有點不同觀點是...我認為這個答案已經包含於前提...並非違背前提.....
但是這些都不是重點...重點是根本不知道農藥價格是多少...沒辦法判斷....
答案B有扯到錢...雖然用other不是很好...但是也包含了新品種cotton
取yes後是唯一直接影響結論的~~~

[Austing]

這是一個800Bob解的 FYR
Evidence:
1) Amount of insecticide needed per acre was only slightly less for farmers who tried modified seed than for farmers who used ordinary seed.
噴灑殺蟲劑的量 改量後種子只比未改良前的少一點點
2) Modified seed costs more than ordinary seed.
改量後的種子很貴
Conclusion:
Using modified seed probably offers no economic advantage.
使用改良後的腫子並沒有帶來經濟效益

The argument assumes that the switch to modified seed is saving farmers only a "slight" amount, not justifying the higher cost of the modified seed. What I would like to know to evaluate this argument is whether this assumption is true. Are the farmers who switched to modified seed saving only a small amount on insecticide, or are they perhaps saving a lot?
Think of it this way. Perhaps the whole story is as follows. In the past, some farmers had used enormous quantities of insecticide per acre. That these farmers were spending so much on insecticide may have been an incentive to try the modified seed. After switching to the modified seed, these farmers now actually spend a little less per acre on insecticide than other farmers do. The modified seed costs a little more, but it's worth it because of the big savings on insecticide.

The answer is E. No other choice relates to the connection between the evidence and the conclusion. D in particular is irrelevant because total number of acres doesn't matter when the discussion is about "amount of insecticide needed per acre."

反正講那麼多 就是把上面那個evidence 跟conclusion要搭橋就是了
http://www.urch.com/forums/search.php?searchid=601770

[keane0727]

我選D
題目斷言
(seed number) x (additional cost per seed) > (total acres) x (saved insecticide cost per acre)
上面不等式左邊就是改種modified增加的成本，右邊就是省下的費用
什麼時候右邊會比左邊大呢？讓我們將total acres減１看看，減１後右邊變成(total acres-1) x (saved insecticide cost per acre) + (1 x insecticide cost per acre)；可見當total acres減少時不等式右邊就可能比左邊大
因此我們要確認modified seeds是不是可以減少種植一樣數量所需的土地

E. 時間焦點錯誤, 農夫改種前的動機不重要，重要的是結果到底有沒有省錢
B. 無關，因為論証是改種後跟改種前的成本變化，和其它作物的成本沒有關係

[dibert8]

我傾向B.

重點是

the amount of insecticide needed per acre to control
insect pests was only slightly lower for those who tried the modified seed than for those
who did not.

因為題目說(1)改良後新的品種."每公頃"農藥用量只有少一點點

且(2)新品種種子較貴

(3)要問如何評估對農夫"經濟上"有益.

所以平均每公頃的"錢"是重點!!(而BE的比較,要用平均每公頃才能建立在相同的比較基準上)

選項E.就算農夫有很大量的田,但是因為每公頃只有少一點點,所以總合起來後平均每公頃的花費也只有少一點點.

選項B,因為平均每公頃只有少一點點,但是若在price上面特貴,平均每公頃量雖只有少一點點,在總花費上面可以少很多,因此再平均到每公頃花費,也可以少較多

請指教~

這麼說,不是要選 (E)?
否定 (B) ,農藥很便宜,但是 seed 貴,少用一點點農藥,省的錢幾乎看不見,能夠讓 farmers 轉檯嗎? 這不就是 unlikely 咧!

[dibert8]

我對 (E) 的看法是這樣子:
原本農夫要使用超大量農藥,但是新種子只讓他們少用一點點,表示問題可能不在新種子,而是其他因素(e.g. 土壤,氣候,蟲,...),使得這些農夫不得不使用超大量農藥,而新種子對他們似乎沒有帶來多大幫助.若非如此,這些農夫就會 switch 啦!

(B) 我覺得是超過範圍的選項.題目只提 cotton ,沒有 other crops 啊! more expensive 也不知道 more 多少? 比種子貴嗎? 否定 (B) 不但沒否定原題,反而支持原題.所以應該不對吧!

[whoops]

說說我的看法,請大家指正

科學家研發出一種改良過的棉花種子可以提高其對蟲害的抵抗力. 根據農民的的報告,改良過的棉花種子需要的農藥只比原本的少了一點點.
文章的結論是:因為改良過的種子比原本的貴,種出來的棉花又不能產生較高的市場價值,所以改良過的種子不能給大多數的農夫帶來經濟上的好處
題目問:哪一個選項有助於evaluate上述結論

答案E說:是否大多數試種改良種子的農夫是因為以前必須使用異常大量的農藥?
不論答案為是或否,都不會改變題目的推論!!因為試種的結果不都已經說明在文章的前提中了--According to farmer's report, the amount of insecticide needed per acre to control insect pests was only slightly lower for those who tried the modified seed than for those who did not.
無助於評估結論對錯

而答案B說:是否原本棉花種子使用的殺蟲劑比用在其他作物的殺蟲劑貴?
答案為是,可以進一步解釋雖然殺蟲劑用量只比原本的種子需要的少一點,但因為原本用的很貴,所以還是可以省下錢,助於評估題目的推論是錯誤
答案為否,可以進一步確認題目的推論無誤
所以支持答案B,雖然支持,但不可諱言,答案B裡說的on other crops存有瑕疵..但相較之下應是較佳的答案

[gan4sula]

3. Scientists have made genetic modifications to cotton to increase its resistance to insect
pests. According to farmers’ reports, the amount of insecticide needed per acre to control
insect pests was only slightly lower for those who tried the modified seed than for those
who did not. Therefore, since the modified seed costs more than ordinary seed without
producing yields of higher market value, switching to the modified seed would be
unlikely to benefit most cotton farmers economically.
Which of the following would it be most useful to know in order to evaluate the argument?

A. Whether farmers who tried the modified cotton seed had ever tried growing other
crops from genetically modified seed
B. Whether the insecticides typically used on ordinary cotton tend to be more
expensive than insecticides typically used on other crops
C. Whether for most farmers who grow cotton it is their primary crop
D. Whether the farmers who have tried the modified seed planted as many acres of
cotton, on average, as farmers using the ordinary seed did
E. Whether most of the farmers who tried the modified seed did so because they had
previously had to use exceptionally large quantities of insecticide


請大家幫忙...
答案是B, 想請教 E 為什麼錯呀??

B: cost of pesticide on cotton vs. cost of pesticide on OTHER. this is so irrelevant, Question is asking you to evaluate that switching to modified cotton would benefit economically. Farmers want to know if they save money by switching to modified cotton seed, and "this" tells them pesticide on other corp is cheaper. so i guess this suggesting farmers to not cultivate cottons?

E: this is telling the reason why farmers who tried modified cotton. ONLY reason, it does not justify the plan's efficacy.
---HOWEVER, if this choice is to know "whether farmers who try modified cotton typically USE large quantity of pesticide," the this would make sense because this would mean that "-the amount of insecticide needed per acre to control insect pests was only slightly lower-" would be false since the two group of comparison is not the same

finally D
it address the basic ground of comparsion. if the number of cotton seeds per acer are the same for both group of farmers. then the among of pesticide per square inch can be compared; therefore, cost could be estimated.
for example - i could say that TOKYO (20m population) is similar in size to Taiwan (23m population) since their population are approximately equal. This is obviously false. since population density is different.

[dibert8]

(D) Whether the farmers who have tried the modified seed planted as many acres of cotton, on average, as farmers using the ordinary seed did
我怎麼看不到什麼 per acre? 應該是講用改良和一般種子的農夫種一樣多 acre 吧!這題跟種多少 acre 應該無關喔!

[hey]

所謂evaluate的題目是只在乎過程不在乎結果, 答案選項(D)一定要考慮才能evaluate題幹的部份, 如兩種東西已站在不平等的基礎上了, 那麼如何evaluate,而有題幹所提供的結論...

所以這題的答案選項是選(D)

至於題目已經給你use insecticide in modification seed is slightly lower than original seed, 所以就算以前用很多insecticide在orginal seeds上, 現在insecticide也是slightly lower in modification seed上, 所以這個選項實在是沒有用的

[gan4sula]

(D) Whether the farmers who have tried the modified seed planted as many acres of cotton, on average, as farmers using the ordinary seed did
我怎麼看不到什麼 per acre? 應該是講用改良和一般種子的農夫種一樣多 acre 吧!這題跟種多少 acre 應該無關喔!

沒錯我也覺得我很白吃
hey大我看不太懂你意思
那我在掰一次
看下面那句
yields of higher market value

using roughly same among of pesticide per acer without producing yields (per acer?) of higher market value

(D) judges if modified seeds really yield no more per acer than original seeds

這樣?

[hey]

這樣說好啦....
使用在每畝modified seed田上的農藥量只有slightly less than使用在每畝orginal seed田上的農藥量...
而modified seed的成本大於orginal seed
因為這兩個原因,所以科學家認為switch to modified seed對於農夫是沒有經濟利益的...
所以你必需要去衡量囉.... 如果每畝modified seed田的產量大於每畝original seed田的產量, 那麼科學家的結論就錯啦....
相反的, 科學家的結論就對啦...
所以說, 如果要evaluate科學家的結論, 是否必需要找出像(D)的這個答案呢...

[dibert8]

(D) 沒有說產量啊!
覺得這個選項是針對題目裡 per acre 來的,考'平均' vs '總量'的觀念.
(yield 也是平均的觀念;種的多不見得 per acre 收穫得多喔!)

[dibert8]

我想我要來翻案了; EST 考得實在很細,一不留神就忘了原來題目問啥了.這一個 evaluation 題,為了選項 (B) 的 other crops 遷就 (E) ,很容易就轉成當 support / weaken 題在做了.
仔細一想, 不管 (E) 是 yes (只有需用大量農藥的人受益,所以 unlikely to benefit most) 還是 no (這就是題目說的沒好處了吧!), 對題目的回答都是 'yes, it would be unlikely to benefit most cotton farmers economically.'
(B) 如果是 yes => 對題目的回答是 'no, it would Not be unlikely to benefit most cotton farmers economically.' (i.e. it is likely to benifit) 因為農藥比一般 (typical) 貴,還是值得去把這錢給省下來.
如果是 no => 對題目的回答是 'yes, it would be unlikely to benefit most cotton farmers economically.'
天啊!投降了. 選 (B).

[小花]

這題的確很難
我也想了很久
以下是CD裡lawer的看法
lawer分析的滿清楚的
大家參考看看



認為E不妥，理由如下



1。E的意思為：多數試改良品種（下稱新品種）的農民改用新品種的原因是不是因為以前不得不使用大量農藥。一個答案是原來用農藥太多才改種新品種。另一個答案是其他原因使他們改，也許是special need 。但文章在討論的是換新品種是否經濟有利（注意結論的benefit economically）的問題，是在算經濟賬。跟原來為何要改沒關係。如果改的原因是原來用農藥多，從農民的報告看，改後用藥也省不了多少。關鍵的是單純從E是推不出改後用農藥多少，改後用藥多少是從原文得出。如果是其他原因，那就更對原文起不了作用，因為E沒說，你不知其他何原因讓農民改，說不定是政府強制試驗，WHO KNOWS。其實E只在為何改上講，除此之外什麼也沒說，更不能得出任何對算經濟賬有用的信息，即使是該的原因原來用農藥太多，你也得不出該後用農藥就少，何況另一個答案是其他與經濟無關的原因。所以E是不合適的。



2。我傾向B。問題要求找能EVALUATE原文推理的，實際就是支持和反對原文推理。這兩者的要求不高，只要在推理的邏輯線上（不要在推理外，討論的話題不在原文的推理之外），在方向上對結論起支持和反對作用就行了。不像ASSUMPTION，要排除其他可能。



3。具體到本題，原文是在算經濟賬，算算新舊品種那種合算。跟其他因素無關。新品種省農藥但種子貴，舊品種種子便宜但用藥多。要嚴格比較那種在經濟上合算，是必須將有關的價格因素進行對比，多多少，少多少，但原文沒有，這就是為何該題不是問ASSUMPTION的原因（必須排除其他可能）。問題問支持反對，滿足兩個條件就可以（當然MOST題時存在程度的問題）。對B選項，如果舊品種用的農藥比新品種貴，這在更換新品種的經濟賬上加了一個籌碼，更換經濟合算的可能性增大，起支持作用。反之，則在更換新品種的經濟賬上減了一個籌碼，更換經濟不合算的可能性增大，其反對作用。所以B正確。



4。現在留下的問題是B中的other crops 能否包括modified cotton（注意只要包括就可以）。我認為應該包括。other 修飾的crops用複數，other在這裡的意思為：the rest。 used to refer to all the people or things in a group apart from the one you have already mentioned or the one that is already known about. 即除你已知道或提到的之外的全部。對B選項已經提到的是ordinary cotton，除ordinary cotton之外的全部莊家，當然應該包括modified cotton。其實B要表達的意思是ordinary cotton用的農藥是最貴的，直接告訴你比modified cotton太便宜你，這不是ETS的風格，他們總要繞著說。