[問題]gwd3-17(同gwd4-15)

[doki28]

從題目來判斷,如果是問the best basis for "a" rebuttal of the criticism
跟the best basis for "the" rebuttal of the criticism
那麼前者應該是考weaken 而後者則是考 strengthen囉.....

[yvetteliao]

我覺得重點在於問rebuttal of the criticism
因此就是要找可以weaken criticism的選項(rebuttal=weaken)
而之前的the best basis是說明rebuttal
所以重點應該不在於a和the

[Jensenlexus]

我覺得重點在於問rebuttal of the criticism
因此就是要找可以weaken criticism的選項(rebuttal=weaken)
而之前的the best basis是說明rebuttal
所以重點應該不在於a和the

個人認為題目問"Criticism 反駁的basis"
以下
Brochure: Help conserve our city’s water supply. (為幫助節省本市的供水) By converting the landscaping in your yard to a water-conserving landscape, you can greatly reduce your outdoor water use. (By 帶出方法: 將後院由"園藝造景"改為"水塘造景" 可以減少用水) A water-conserving landscape is natural and attractive, and it also saves you money.
(水塘造景自然優美而且又可以幫你省錢)


Criticism: For most people with yards, the savings from converting to a water-conserving landscape cannot justify the expense of new landscaping, (the savings指為上述Brochure所說的省水錢 , "水塘造景"省下的錢不足以合理解釋新景觀的費用) since typically the conversion would save less than twenty dollars on a homeowner’s yearly water bills. (因為改變每年只省下$20水費)

爭點:
Brochure: 由園藝造景-->水塘造景 可以省水費
Criticism: 新造景節省的水費...無法合理解釋新造景的費用
因為水費每年只省$20
(此處Criticism是反駁: 省水費不能合理解釋新造景費用 因為節省的水費很少
所以反駁的基礎是---->節省的錢不是因為省水費...而是另有他因)

Which of the following, if true, provides the best basis for a rebuttal of the criticism?

A. Even homeowners whose yards do not have water-conserving landscapes can conserve water by installing water-saving devices in their homes. (可以加裝省水設備---無關)
B. A conventional landscape generally requires a much greater expenditure on fertilizer and herbicide than does a water-conserving landscape. (傳統造景比水塘造景需要大大大筆支出在肥料跟沙草劑上----符合Criticism的反駁論點)
C. A significant proportion of the residents of the city live in buildings that do not have yards. (大部分市民住的房子沒有yards---無關)
D. It costs no more to put in water-conserving landscaping than it does to put in conventional landscaping. (兩種造景花費成本相當--無關省錢)
E. Some homeowners use more water to maintain their yards than they use for all other purposes combined. (Some homewners 範圍不對)

小弟淺見,如有誤謬,請不吝指教

[jerryhaha]

[color=blue]爭點:
Brochure: 由園藝造景-->水塘造景 可以省水費
^^^^^^
原文中並沒有提到省"水費",而是說省錢,因此下面的推論也跟著錯誤了

: 新造景節省的水費...無法合理解釋新造景的費用
因為水費每年只省$20
(此處Criticism是反駁: 省水費不能合理解釋新造景費用 因為節省的水費很少
所以反駁的基礎是---->節省的錢不是因為省水費...而是另有他因) 請不吝指教
[/quote]

這題應該是

Brochure:換新的water-conserving landscape可以幫忙省水,又可以省錢

Criticism:換新的water-conserving landscape只省了一點點的水錢,無法負擔更新的費用,所以沒有人會想換

a rebuttal of the criticism 問說如何反駁criticism

B)的意思是說,在其他方面,新的water-conserving landscape的確省了很多錢
(所以反駁了Criticism的立場:因為省的錢無法負擔換新的費用)

有誤請指教

[FIG]

從題目來判斷,如果是問the best basis for "a" rebuttal of the criticism
跟the best basis for "the" rebuttal of the criticism
那麼前者應該是考weaken 而後者則是考 strengthen囉.....

補充一下longman的例句
his firm rebuttal of the accusations
或許這個字就是這麼用的，與後面的名詞採反向的關係