GWD6-Q5 to Q7:

[agk99]

GWD6-Q5 to Q7: (生物類)


According to a theory advanced
by researcher Paul Martin, the wave
of species extinctions that occurred
in North America about 11,000 years
(5) ago, at the end of the Pleistocene era,
can be directly attributed to the arrival
of humans, i.e., the Paleoindians, who
were ancestors of modern Native
Americans. (PM先生認為動物的消滅都是人類的祖先幹的) However, anthropologist
(10) Shepard Krech points out that large
animal species vanished even in areas
where there is no evidence to demon-
strate that Paleoindians hunted them. (SK先生則認為沒有證據支持是人幹的)
Nor were extinctions confined to large
(15) animals: small animals, plants, and
insects disappeared, presumably not
all through human consumption. (同時小動物的滅絕也不能記在人類頭上)Krech
also contradicts Martin’s exclusion of
climatic change as an explanation by
(20) asserting that widespread climatic
change did indeed occur at the end of
the Pleistocene. (SK同時認為PM沒有提到天氣的變化相當有問題)Still, Krech attributes
secondary if not primary responsibility
for the extinctions to the Paleoindians,
(25) arguing that humans have produced
local extinctions elsewhere. But,
according to historian Richard White,
even the attribution of secondary
responsibility may not be supported
(30) by the evidence. (RW先生則是認為，即便是SK的看法也缺少證據)
White observes that
Martin’s thesis depends on coinciding
dates for the arrival of humans and the
decline of large animal species, and
Krech, though aware that the dates
(35) are controversial, does not challenge
them; (PW先生認為，PM的看法其實只是巧合)
yet recent archaeological
discoveries are providing evidence
that the date of human arrival was
much earlier than 11,000 years ago. (第四種看法，意味支持「動物的滅絕確實不是人幹的」，也就是同意PW的看法)--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q5:
Which of the following is true about Martin’s theory, as that theory is described in the passage?

A. It assumes that the Paleoindians were primarily dependent on hunting for survival. 題目沒那麼直接說，只說人要負責，並非直接說是被人宰來吃
B. It denies that the Pleistocene species extinctions were caused by climate change. 從SK的看法就能推出
C. It uses as evidence the fact that humans have produced local extinctions in other situations. 是SK不是PM
D. It attempts to address the controversy over the date of human arrival in North America. 並沒有
E. It admits the possibility that factors other than the arrival of humans played a role in the Pleistocene extinctions. 並沒有

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q6:
Which of the following, if true, would most weaken Krech’s objections to Martin’s theory?

A. Further studies showing that the climatic change that occurred at the end of the Pleistocene era was even more severe and widespread than was previously believed 是support
B. New discoveries indicating that Paleoindians made use of the small animals, plants, and insects that became extinct SK認為不是人幹的，這裡卻發現有人吃動物，直接weaken了SK
C. Additional evidence indicating that widespread climatic change occurred not only at the end of the Pleistocene era but also in previous and subsequent eras 要是天氣不好是持續的，則就不能歸因於天氣，要死早死了
D. Researchers’ discoveries that many more species became extinct in North America at the end of the Pleistocene era than was previously believed 無關
E. New discoveries establishing that both the arrival of humans in North America and the wave of Pleistocene extinctions took place much earlier than 11,000 years ago 無關

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q7:
In the last sentence of the passage, the author refers to “recent archaeological discoveries” (lines 36-37) most probably in order to

A. refute White’s suggestion that neither Maritn nor Krech adequately account for Paleoindians’ contributions to the Pleistocene extinctions 支持才對不是refute
B. cast doubt on the possibility that a more definitive theory regarding the causes of the Pleistocene extinctions may be forthcoming 沒有提及
C. suggest that Martin’s, Krech’s, and White’s theories regarding the Pleistocene extinctions are all open to question 有結論才對，不會沒結論
D. call attention to the most controversial aspect of all the current theories regarding the Pleistocene extinctions 不只是注意而己，而是更積極的起了否定PM與SK的作用
E. provide support for White’s questioning of both Martin’s and Krech’s positions regarding the role of Paleoindians in the Pleistocene extinctions這裡提到的證據，剛好直接證明RW先生對另兩位科學家的觀察

[小紅豆]

Nor were extinctions confined to large animals: small animals, plants, and insects disappeared, presumably not all through human consumption. 文章中的15行

還原是這樣嗎??

small animals , plants , and insects disappeared , presumbly were not all through human consumption nor extictions confined to large animals.

不太懂????
謝謝

[davidlee0222]

Nor were extinctions confined to large animals: small animals, plants, and insects disappeared, presumably not all through human consumption. 文章中的15行

還原是這樣嗎??

small animals , plants , and insects disappeared , presumbly were not all through human consumption nor extictions confined to large animals.

不太懂????
謝謝

這句話的nor是接這上一句話的
前面的句號是假的
應該是分號才對
故意混淆你讓你看不懂

要從第9行看起

(前面PM先生認為北美PL世紀末動物的消滅都是印地安人的祖先P幹的)

However, anthropologist
(10) Shepard Krech points out that large
animal species vanished even in areas
where there is no evidence to demon-
strate that Paleoindians hunted them. (SK先生則認為在"沒有證據支持是P人幹的"的地方，大型物種一樣滅絕)

Nor were extinctions confined to large
(15) animals: small animals, plants, and
insects disappeared, presumably not
all through human consumption.

物種滅絕"也不"限於大型物種
後面補述小動植物跟昆蟲也消失
應該不是人吃的

文章一開始是以一個論點開頭
但SK做出兩點反駁
not A nor B


一開始會看不懂是正常的
因為沒看過有人這樣用
光用句子裡的連接詞永遠也解不出來
這裡是要用文章的大體結構來了解

開放性閱讀量大到一定程度後
自然會對文章大體結構慢慢熟悉

這裡不太算難句
所以應該不用放到難句諮詢主題裡

[小紅豆]

Nor were extinctions confined to large animals: small animals, plants, and insects disappeared, presumably not all through human consumption. 文章中的15行

還原是這樣嗎??

small animals , plants , and insects disappeared , presumbly were not all through human consumption nor extictions confined to large animals.

不太懂????
謝謝

這句話的nor是接這上一句話的
前面的句號是假的
應該是分號才對
故意混淆你讓你看不懂

dora03 大衛哥你真的太厲害了

謝謝 大衛i68...........對我來說歐姬還有好多難句呢(好像楊棚難句我只看了一遍半阿..... )






要從第9行看起

(前面PM先生認為北美PL世紀末動物的消滅都是印地安人的祖先P幹的)

However, anthropologist
(10) Shepard Krech points out that large
animal species vanished even in areas
where there is no evidence to demon-
strate that Paleoindians hunted them. (SK先生則認為在"沒有證據支持是P人幹的"的地方，大型物種一樣滅絕)

Nor were extinctions confined to large
(15) animals: small animals, plants, and
insects disappeared, presumably not
all through human consumption.

物種滅絕"也不"限於大型物種
後面補述小動植物跟昆蟲也消失
應該不是人吃的

文章一開始是以一個論點開頭
但SK做出兩點反駁
not A nor B


一開始會看不懂是正常的
因為沒看過有人這樣用
光用句子裡的連接詞永遠也解不出來
這裡是要用文章的大體結構來了解

開放性閱讀量大到一定程度後
自然會對文章大體結構慢慢熟悉

這裡不太算難句
所以應該不用放到難句諮詢主題裡

[davidlee0222]

有難句就丟出來問囉
小弟盡己所能協助破解~

[tedli]

請教第6題：
題目問weakem Krech對Martin的理論
C選項說之前天氣就有變化了，誠如agk所言，要死早就死了，不能歸因於天氣，那不就weaken了第17行所說的：Krech反駁Martin將氣候變遷的因素排除。

這是我的想法，還是我是錯在那邊呢？

請指導，謝謝

[davidlee0222]

C不一定
可能那次氣候變化特別嚴重
造成動物滅絕

SK原本反駁PM說人不可能把昆蟲吃了
B講人利用昆蟲做了不知蛇麼事
可能拿來當餌釣魚之類的
因此可能造成蟲蟲危機
所以可以直接威啃SK

要排除A因只講其他時間也有A因不一定能反駁
但說B因不可能
只要有任何可能情況即可反駁

[nicoleliu]

Still, Krech attributes
secondary if not primary responsibility
for the extinctions to the Paleoindians,
(25)arguing that humans have produced
local extinctions elsewhere.

請問這句是啥意思ㄋ??
K認為P人類是滅亡的"次要因素", 而不是主因嗎??

請前輩幫忙解惑....謝謝

[agk99]

Still, Krech attributes
secondary if not primary responsibility
for the extinctions to the Paleoindians,
arguing that humans have produced
local extinctions elsewhere.

這句可拆成兩句
第一句大致上是說，如果不是主要理由，SK認為至少是次要理由
第二句是延續上一句，指出SK主張，是人類有造成動物滅絕

如果不懂再說

[nicoleliu]

Still, Krech attributes
secondary if not primary responsibility
for the extinctions to the Paleoindians,
arguing that humans have produced
local extinctions elsewhere.

這句可拆成兩句
第一句大致上是說，如果不是主要理由，SK認為至少是次要理由
第二句是延續上一句，指出SK主張，是人類有造成動物滅絕

如果不懂再說

thanks~agk大大
懂了!!!

[yotoan]

Still, Krech attributes
secondary if not primary responsibility
for the extinctions to the Paleoindians,
arguing that humans have produced
local extinctions elsewhere.

這句可拆成兩句
第一句大致上是說，如果不是主要理由，SK認為至少是次要理由
第二句是延續上一句，指出SK主張，是人類有造成動物滅絕

如果不懂再說

啊??那意思是SK也有認為P人造成動物滅絕嗎??
那文章所指的M跟SK互相contrast的地方是只指主要原因不同??
M說是P人..SK說是天氣變化的意思嗎??
感恩先~

[維尼]

C不一定
可能那次氣候變化特別嚴重
造成動物滅絕

SK原本反駁PM說人不可能把昆蟲吃了
B講人利用昆蟲做了不知蛇麼事
可能拿來當餌釣魚之類的
因此可能造成蟲蟲危機
所以可以直接威啃SK

要排除A因只講其他時間也有A因不一定能反駁
但說B因不可能
只要有任何可能情況即可反駁

關於第六題
首先
SK的理論有兩個部分
1. 人類不是主因 是次因
2. 相對於Martin不承認天氣變化是主因 認為天氣變化是主因

我覺得答案B不能反駁耶
請看 Nor were extinctions confined to large
(15) animals: small animals, plants, and
insects disappeared, presumably not
all through human consumption.

這邊是屬於SK的理論部分
他其實有承認人類有消耗部分的小動物
答案B New discoveries indicating that Paleoindians made use of the small animals, plants, and insects that became extinct
只說到人類有利用小動物
並沒有說人類利用小動物造成他們滅絕唷!

相對地
答案C直接有weaken SK's argument
就是 天氣變化在之前跟之後都有存在
可是動物都還在
所以不是天氣變化造成動物滅絕
詳細一點說
就是在 the end of the Pleistocene 之前的有過天氣變化
可是小動物還生存著
(然後在 the end of the Pleistocene 時的天氣變化滅絕?!)
屬於 有因但無果 的weaken
請大家指教一下

[shine822]

關於第六題
首先
SK的理論有兩個部分
1. 人類不是主因 是次因
2. 相對於Martin不承認天氣變化是主因 認為天氣變化是主因

我覺得答案B不能反駁耶
請看 Nor were extinctions confined to large
(15) animals: small animals, plants, and
insects disappeared, presumably not
all through human consumption.

這邊是屬於SK的理論部分
他其實有承認人類有消耗部分的小動物
答案B New discoveries indicating that Paleoindians made use of the small animals, plants, and insects that became extinct
只說到人類有利用小動物
並沒有說人類利用小動物造成他們滅絕唷!

--->有啦∼畫紅線的部分 就有指出 B 說人類使小動物、植物、昆蟲都絕種啦∼

相對地
答案C直接有weaken SK's argument
就是 天氣變化在之前跟之後都有存在
可是動物都還在
所以不是天氣變化造成動物滅絕
詳細一點說
就是在 the end of the Pleistocene 之前的有過天氣變化
可是小動物還生存著
(然後在 the end of the Pleistocene 時的天氣變化滅絕?!)
屬於 有因但無果 的weaken
請大家指教一下

再看一下文章這一句：
Krech also contradicts Martin's exclusion of climatic change as an explanation by asserting that widespread climatic change did indeed occur at the end of the Pleistocene.

Krech 對 Martin 的反駁是 不應該把氣候這項因素排除
所以 Krech 認為氣候有影響
那要 WEAKEN 應該要說 the end of the Pleistocene 那次的氣候沒影響，提了之前和之後的天氣變化，也沒說有沒有影響，儘管都沒影響好了，也都不足以代表那次的有沒有影響啊！

至於也有提到天氣的 A 就是很明顯的 support 啦!!

太白話了，感覺超不專業...

[維尼]

關於第六題
首先
SK的理論有兩個部分
1. 人類不是主因 是次因
2. 相對於Martin不承認天氣變化是主因 認為天氣變化是主因

我覺得答案B不能反駁耶
請看 Nor were extinctions confined to large
(15) animals: small animals, plants, and
insects disappeared, presumably not
all through human consumption.

這邊是屬於SK的理論部分
他其實有承認人類有消耗部分的小動物
答案B New discoveries indicating that Paleoindians made use of the small animals, plants, and insects that became extinct
只說到人類有利用小動物
並沒有說人類利用小動物造成他們滅絕唷!

--->有啦∼畫紅線的部分 就有指出 B 說人類使小動物、植物、昆蟲都絕種啦∼

相對地
答案C直接有weaken SK's argument
就是 天氣變化在之前跟之後都有存在
可是動物都還在
所以不是天氣變化造成動物滅絕
詳細一點說
就是在 the end of the Pleistocene 之前的有過天氣變化
可是小動物還生存著
(然後在 the end of the Pleistocene 時的天氣變化滅絕?!)
屬於 有因但無果 的weaken
請大家指教一下

再看一下文章這一句：
Krech also contradicts Martin's exclusion of climatic change as an explanation by asserting that widespread climatic change did indeed occur at the end of the Pleistocene.

Krech 對 Martin 的反駁是 不應該把氣候這項因素排除
所以 Krech 認為氣候有影響
那要 WEAKEN 應該要說 the end of the Pleistocene 那次的氣候沒影響，提了之前和之後的天氣變化，也沒說有沒有影響，儘管都沒影響好了，也都不足以代表那次的有沒有影響啊！

至於也有提到天氣的 A 就是很明顯的 support 啦!!

太白話了，感覺超不專業...

ㄛ
我對畫紅線那句話的了解是:
人類有利用絕種的動物
become這個動詞並沒有帶出 因果關係 的意思
只是單純地表達狀態唷!

所以我才說那句話沒有weaken到 :)

[o_i_o_i_o]

Still, Krech attributes
secondary if not primary responsibility
for the extinctions to the Paleoindians,
(25) arguing that humans have produced
local extinctions elsewhere. But,according to historian Richard White,
even the attribution of secondary
responsibility may not be supported
(30) by the evidence. White observes that
Martin’s thesis depends on coinciding
dates for the arrival of humans and the
decline of large animal species, and
Krech, though aware that the dates
(35) are controversial, does not challenge
them; yet recent archaeological
discoveries are providing evidence
that the date of human arrival was
much earlier than 11,000 years ago.

Q7:
In the last sentence of the passage, the author refers to “recent archaeological discoveries” (lines 36-37) most probably in order to

A. refute White’s suggestion that neither Maritn nor Krech adequately account for Paleoindians’ contributions to the Pleistocene extinctions
B. cast doubt on the possibility that a more definitive theory regarding the causes of the Pleistocene extinctions may be forthcoming
C. suggest that Martin’s, Krech’s, and White’s theories regarding the Pleistocene extinctions are all open to question
D. call attention to the most controversial aspect of all the current theories regarding the Pleistocene extinctions
E. provide support for White’s questioning of both Martin’s and Krech’s positions regarding the role of Paleoindians in the Pleistocene extinctions