[問] Sep JJ 一題

[gan4sula]

Some people say that the scarcity of food is a function of the finite limits of the earth’s resources, coupled with a relentless rate of population growth. This analysis fails to recognize, however, that much of the world’s agricultural resources are used to feed livestock instead of people. In the United States, for example, almost one-half of the agricultural acreage is devoted to crops fed to livestock. A steer reduces twenty-one pounds of inexpensive grain to one pound of expensive meat. Thus, the scarcity of food is not merely a function of limited resources and population growth.

Which one of the following is an assumption that would allow the conclusion in the argument to be properly drawn?

(A) People prefer eating meat to eating grain.
(B) Meat is twenty-one times more expensive than grain.
(C) The limits of the earth’s agricultural resources are not finite.
(D) More than one-half of the agricultural acreage in the United States is devoted to drops fed to humans.
(E) Growing crops for human consumption on the acreage currently devoted to crops for livestock will yield more food for more people.

這題答案大家覺得是啥
我沒有正確答案
個人選A

[foric0822]

[quote="gan4sula"]Some people say that the scarcity of food is a function of the finite limits of the earth’s resources, coupled with a relentless rate of population growth. This analysis fails to recognize, however, that much of the world’s agricultural resources are used to feed livestock instead of people. In the United States, for example, almost one-half of the agricultural acreage is devoted to crops fed to livestock. A steer reduces twenty-one pounds of inexpensive grain to one pound of expensive meat. Thus, the scarcity of food is not merely a function of limited resources and population growth.

Which one of the following is an assumption that would allow the conclusion in the argument to be properly drawn?

(A) People prefer eating meat to eating grain.
(B) Meat is twenty-one times more expensive than grain.
(C) The limits of the earth’s agricultural resources are not finite.
(D) More than one-half of the agricultural acreage in the United States is devoted to drops fed to humans.
(E) Growing crops for human consumption on the acreage currently devoted to crops for livestock will yield more food for more people.

這題答案大家覺得是啥
我沒有正確答案
個人選A

我個人認為答案應該是E
A無關
B無法獲得相關資訊
C無法獲得相關資訊 文中結論是說糧食不是人口成長的限制因素
D二分之一的糧食提供給人類不代表是用二分之一的耕地面積

[gan4sula]

我個人認為答案應該是E
A無關
B無法獲得相關資訊
C無法獲得相關資訊 文中結論是說糧食不是人口成長的限制因素
D用此當前提無法獲得結論（無法解釋為何糧食不是限制因素）

可否請教思路 why 什麼是E

[foric0822]

almost one-half of the agricultural acreage is devoted to crops fed to livestock（事實）. A steer reduces twenty-one pounds of inexpensive grain to one pound of expensive meat（事實）. Thus, the scarcity of food is not merely a function of limited resources and population growth（結論）
兩個事實→結論 assumption、support、weaken基本上都是一家
找出推論的依據，補足依據與推論之間的GAP，簡單來說就是找相關性
答案E將第一個事實與推論作了連結，所以我覺得這是正確答案
至於對這個答案作解釋，我覺得沒什麼意義
因為ETS是考相關性，而不是合理性
另外一點，通常選項中帶有情緒的表達很少會對
可以注意看看這樣的規律

[dibert8]

覺得應該選 (E), 在 (C) (E) 之間猶疑,但是覺得 (C) 範圍太大.
否定 (C), The limits of the earth’s agricultural resources are finite. 並不能否定題目的結論 => the scarcity of food is merely a function of limited resources and population growth. 因為依文章中所考慮的,食物缺乏可能還需加入動物的數量,也可以在加入其 它因素:氣候,生態,污染,...
否定 (E), 則因為侷限在題目考慮的的範圍內,題目的結論不會成立.

[lucyyeh]

我在想A搞不好是對的，也不知道這題題目有沒有齊
如果沒有愛吃肉的人，哪來的l吃糧食ivestock，沒有吃糧食的livestock，就沒有除了limited resources and population growth 以外的因素了。
所以我覺得的要選A。
可是A也怪怪的，人愛吃甚於愛吃穀物，可是又不表示人愛吃就一定會吃，或者有得吃。
所以我覺得A也有毛病。

[cktseng]

Some people say that the scarcity of food is a function of the finite limits of the earth’s resources, coupled with a relentless rate of population growth. This analysis fails to recognize, however, that much of the world’s agricultural resources are used to feed livestock instead of people. In the United States, for example, almost one-half of the agricultural acreage is devoted to crops fed to livestock. A steer reduces twenty-one pounds of inexpensive grain to one pound of expensive meat. Thus, the scarcity of food is not merely a function of limited resources and population growth.

Which one of the following is an assumption that would allow the conclusion in the argument to be properly drawn?

(A) People prefer eating meat to eating grain.
(B) Meat is twenty-one times more expensive than grain.
(C) The limits of the earth’s agricultural resources are not finite.
(D) More than one-half of the agricultural acreage in the United States is devoted to drops fed to humans.
(E) Growing crops for human consumption on the acreage currently devoted to crops for livestock will yield more food for more people.

這題答案大家覺得是啥
我沒有正確答案
個人選A

我個人認為答案應該是E
A無關
B無法獲得相關資訊
C無法獲得相關資訊 文中結論是說糧食不是人口成長的限制因素
D二分之一的糧食提供給人類不代表是用二分之一的耕地面積

答案很清楚是E
因為沒有這個假設的話 結論無法成立
假設為"如果用將目前用來供給畜生食物的農地改成
供給人類食物的農地會產生更多的食物給人類"

[gan4sula]

I think ans should be E

but....
i still cant get pass the reasoning....

scarcity of food is a function of finite limits of the earth's resources,

but, much resources are used to feed livestock (infering not feeding livestock could not result scarcity of food?)

so scarcity of food is NOT a function of finite limits of the earth's resources

but to me, and from math point of view, though E satisfys the reasoning, there will eventually be scarce of food as time goes on because the earth's resources feeding livestock is not unlimited............ and also there are other reasons that makes resources limited (like D8大說的)

i initially choose A because i wasnt sure if meat counts as earth's resources

[dibert8]

依所舉的例,意思如同:農作物給 livestock 吃掉,不如直接給人吃.
如果 livestock 吃了農作物,人再吃 livestock 效果一樣,那就說明 the scarcity of food is a function of the finite limits of the earth’s resources.
但是當農作物直接種給人吃可以養活更多人時,變數就多了一個:吃的效果不同(一樣的資源因運用的差異而養活更多人). Thus, the scarcity of food is not merely a function of limited resources and population growth.