[問題]OG159

[chloemoney]

159.Half of the subjects in an experiment—the experimental group—consumed large quantities of a popular artificial sweetener. Afterward, this group showed lower cognitive abilities than did the other half of the subjects—the control group—who did not consume the sweetener. The detrimental effects were attributed to an amino acid that is one of the sweetener’s principal constituents.

Which of the following, if true, would best support the conclusion that some ingredient of the sweetener was responsible for the experimental results?
(A) Most consumers of the sweetener do not consume as much of it as the experimental group members did.
(B) The amino acid referred to in the conclusion is a component of all proteins, some of which must be consumed for adequate nutrition.
(C) The quantity of the sweetener consumed by individuals in the experimental group is considered safe by federal food regulators.
(D) The two groups of subjects were evenly matched with regard to cognitive abilities prior to the experiment.
(E) A second experiment in which subjects consumed large quantities of the sweetener lacked a control group of subjects who were not given the sweetener.



關於og對於B之解釋， Choice B indicates that, outside of the experiment, both groups consume the amino acid. If relatively small quantities are involved, the conclusion is unaffected: otherwise it is weakened.
我想問一下，這是指說如果B句中的some of which must be consumed for adequate nutrition的量（即amino acid的量）如果改成要很多的，才能有足夠的營養，就可以weaken原題中 說amino acid 會影響人cognitive abilities 的說法囉？

[Pudding]

原題的結論是sweetener當中的amino acid會影響cognitive abilities, B說明這種amino acid是在所有的蛋白質當中都有的成分, 而這些蛋白質中有些是必須被人們攝取以獲得足夠營養的...

所以不管是some of these proteins, 還是all of the proteins, 都說明兩個實驗組都有食用amino acid (而非如實驗原本假設般, 一組有食用一組沒有), 因而無法合理推出原題結論, 從而weaken

可是題目要問的是support耶...

open to discuss...

[chloemoney]

原題的結論是sweetener當中的amino acid會影響cognitive abilities, B說明這種amino acid是在所有的蛋白質當中都有的成分, 而這些蛋白質中有些是必須被人們攝取以獲得足夠營養的...
--->原來，我原本的句意就看錯了，了解囉..謝謝

所以不管是some of these proteins, 還是all of the proteins, 都說明兩個實驗組都有食用amino acid (而非如實驗原本假設般, 一組有食用一組沒有), 因而無法合理推出原題結論, 從而weaken
-->我可以理解你所提出，
但是 og的解釋我還是看不明白，outside of the experiment, both groups consume the amino acid. -->所以有上面你所解釋的，因為兩組都有吃，所以無法比較。 我的問題是這一句 ，If relatively small quantities are involved, the conclusion is unaffected; otherwise it is weakened. -->這裡說的small quantities 是指proteins還是amino acid呀？-->我自己猜是proteins，
所以我的理解是，因為原B句中有說，所有protein都含有amino acid，而且「有一些」proteins必須被人們攝取以獲得足夠營養的，而「有一些」也就是解釋中的small quantities ，對原題結論是不會構成影響。otherwise後，我的理解是，如果是大量的protein是被需要以攝取足夠的營養的話，那原題結論就會被weaken，因為所有proteins都有amino acid, 如果一定要吃大量的protein, 那就等於吃了大量的amino acid................. 所以可以weaken就是amino acid 影響cognitive abilities......................
好像想太多了吼..............不知道看的人看不看的懂,對不起.........


open to discuss...

[Pudding]

挖哈哈, 不用對不起啦...
討論CR有趣的地方就在於這裡啊...

我是覺得沒理解錯妳的意思的話, 我的看法應該是跟你一樣, 就是說所有的proteins都含有amino acid, 因此食用proteins, 當然也就會吃到amino acid...
and then, 如果只是吃少量的話, 對實驗結果不會有影響 (也就是無所謂support也無所謂weaken, 因此不能選這個答案), 吃的多的話, 就如前面所分析的, 變成weaken了, 那就更不能選...

不曉得你是否問的是這個?

[chloemoney]

歐椰......呵呵呵！

是地...這就是我問的啦！
我了解囉！謝啦！
你真是我的大恩人啦.....

[lelapin]

請問D支持理由是....? 看不太懂耶
拜託囉!

[dibert8]

比較基準相同,所以可以做出有效地結論.