GWD6-16(BF題)

[liwuu]

Q16:
Historian: Newton developed mathematical concepts and techniques that are fundamental to modern calculus. Leibniz developed closely analogous concepts and techniques. It has traditionally been thought that these discoveries were independent. Researchers have, however, recently discovered notes of Leibniz’ that discuss one of Newton’s books on mathematics. Several scholars have argued that since the book includes a presentation of Newton’s calculus concepts and techniques, and since the notes were written before Leibniz’ own development of calculus concepts and techniques, it is virtually certain that the traditional view is false. A more cautious conclusion than this is called for, however. Leibniz’ notes are limited to early sections of Newton’s book, sections that precede the ones in which Newton’s calculus concepts and techniques are presented.

In the historian’s reasoning, the two boldfaced portions play which of the following roles?

A.The first provides evidence in support of the overall position that the historian defends; the second is evidence that has been used to support an opposing position.
B.The first provides evidence in support of the overall position that the historian defends; the second is that position.
C.The first provides evidence in support of an intermediate conclusion that is drawn to provide support for the overall position that the historian defends; the second provides evidence against that intermediate conclusion.
D.The first is evidence that has been used to support a conclusion that the historian criticizes; the second is evidence offered in support of the historian’s own position.
E.The first is evidence that has been used to support a conclusion that the historian criticizes; the second is further information that substantiates that evidence.

答案是D,不太了解整題的意思,尤其是何謂historian's own position...謝謝

[micht]

Q16:
Historian: Newton developed mathematical concepts and techniques that are fundamental to modern calculus. Leibniz developed closely analogous concepts and techniques. It has traditionally been thought that these discoveries were independent. Researchers have, however, recently discovered notes of Leibniz’ that discuss one of Newton’s books on mathematics. Several scholars have argued that since the book includes a presentation of Newton’s calculus concepts and techniques, and since the notes were written before Leibniz’ own development of calculus concepts and techniques, it is virtually certain that the traditional view is false. A more cautious conclusion than this is called for, however. Leibniz’ notes are limited to early sections of Newton’s book, sections that precede the ones in which Newton’s calculus concepts and techniques are presented.

Historian 的立場是 N & L 兩者的mathematical concetps 無關聯
Research argue 有關聯 原因指出 (上面藍色字)
however, (上面綠色字) 但是 L 的研究 are limited to early sections of N's book 且那幾個section並沒有提到 N's mathematical concepts 也就是說 N's concepts 是在N's book 後面的sections才被提出來的
因此 L 只有用到 N's 前半段的section

所以 答案(D)符合

[liwuu]

嗯...我懂了!!很詳細的解釋...謝囉

[James]

The first is evidence that has been used to support a conclusion that the historian criticizes.
evidence是the notes were written before Leibniz’ own development of calculus concepts and techniques，
此處conclusion是指it is virtually certain that the traditional view is false嗎？
是從哪邊看出historian criticizes這個結論？

[汪汪北鼻]

evidence是the notes were written before Leibniz’ own development of calculus concepts and techniques， 對
此處conclusion是指it is virtually certain that the traditional view is false嗎？
對

A more cautious conclusion than this is called for, however. Leibniz’ notes are limited to early sections of Newton’s book, sections that precede the ones in which Newton’s calculus concepts and techniques are presented.

證據支持historian的看法仍是對的，所以前面那黑體字就是和historian相異觀點的證據

[szyang]

Q16:
Historian: Newton developed mathematical concepts and techniques that are fundamental to modern calculus. Leibniz developed closely analogous concepts and techniques. It has traditionally been thought that these discoveries were independent. Researchers have, however, recently discovered notes of Leibniz’ that discuss one of Newton’s books on mathematics. Several scholars have argued that since the book includes a presentation of Newton’s calculus concepts and techniques, and since the notes were written before Leibniz’ own development of calculus concepts and techniques, it is virtually certain that the traditional view is false. A more cautious conclusion than this is called for, however. Leibniz’ notes are limited to early sections of Newton’s book, sections that precede the ones in which Newton’s calculus concepts and techniques are presented.

In the historian’s reasoning, the two boldfaced portions play which of the following roles?

A.The first provides evidence in support of the overall position that the historian defends; the second is evidence that has been used to support an opposing position.
B.The first provides evidence in support of the overall position that the historian defends; the second is that position.
C.The first provides evidence in support of an intermediate conclusion that is drawn to provide support for the overall position that the historian defends; the second provides evidence against that intermediate conclusion.
D.The first is evidence that has been used to support a conclusion that the historian criticizes; the second is evidence offered in support of the historian’s own position.
E.The first is evidence that has been used to support a conclusion that the historian criticizes; the second is further information that substantiates that evidence.

答案是D,不太了解整題的意思,尤其是何謂historian's own position...謝謝

想請問一個笨笨的問題歐...

D.The first is evidence that has been used to support a conclusion that the historian criticizes; the second is evidence offered in support of the historian’s own position.

criticizes這個字是指反對historian的批評者的立場媽?

C.The first provides evidence in support of an intermediate conclusion that is drawn to provide support for the overall position that the historian defends; the second provides evidence against that intermediate conclusion.

那defends就是指historian的自己的立場摟?

文章繞來繞去....搞混了...是不是每一篇這類型的文章這2個字所代表的對象是一樣意思的呢?

謝謝歐!

[Pudding]

我也有點混亂了... 來試試看...

D.The first is evidence that has been used to support a conclusion that the historian criticizes; the second is evidence offered in support of the historian’s own position.

criticizes這個字是指反對historian的批評者的立場媽?

這邊第一個bf應該是支持historian所反對的結論... 我們兩個的講法不同, 但正反意思應該是一樣的...

C.The first provides evidence in support of an intermediate conclusion that is drawn to provide support for the overall position that the historian defends; the second provides evidence against that intermediate conclusion.

那defends就是指historian的自己的立場摟?

同意...

文章繞來繞去....搞混了...是不是每一篇這類型的文章這2個字所代表的對象是一樣意思的呢?

這兩個字代表的意思是不變的, 但依照題目出現的方式位置等不同, 有可能指不同的對象. 要特別小心雙重甚至多重否定的狀況...

自己也暈了... 誰來幫忙糾正一下? Orz

[Behemoth]

同意布丁大神所言

[Janet]

看完大家說的,已經了解本題論點,但在選項中,我一直覺得,CD說的是一樣的事情?

C.The first provides evidence in support of an intermediate conclusion that is drawn to provide support for the overall position that the historian defends; the second provides evidence against that intermediate conclusion.
1是evidence來支持結論(N與L兩者的理論是相關的),而這個結論是historian所反對的
2是evidence來反對上述的結論(N與L兩者的理論是無關的)

D.The first is evidence that has been used to support a conclusion that the historian criticizes; the second is evidence offered in support of the historian’s own position.
1是evidence來支持結論(N與L兩者的理論是相關的),而這結論是historian所反對的
2是evidence來支持historian的結論(N與L兩者的理論是無關的)

請高手解惑??

[davidslin]

C.The first provides evidence in support of an intermediate conclusion that is drawn to provide support for the overall position that the historian defends; the second provides evidence against that intermediate conclusion.
1是evidence來支持結論(N與L兩者的理論是相關的),而這個結論是historian所反對的
我覺得是證據支持結論,而結論是historian所defend(防衛的,也就是支持的)吧?
2是evidence來反對上述的結論(N與L兩者的理論是無關的)

[CUGGYER]

請問在bold-face 題型中
[color=darkred]defend[/color]代表是refute 還是 support

[davidslin]

請問在bold-face 題型中
defend代表是refute 還是 support

就我寫道的題目 感覺上都是當作支持用

[odie]

請問各位高手,
這題是從哪裡看出historian的態度?
根據micht大大的文章
似乎是根據It has traditionally been thought that these discoveries were independent.
可是這句以被動語態表示,根據徐老師的說法,應該是指other's view 才對呀!?
請指教!

[davidslin]

請問各位高手,
這題是從哪裡看出historian的態度?
根據micht大大的文章
似乎是根據It has traditionally been thought that these discoveries were independent.
可是這句以被動語態表示,根據徐老師的說法,應該是指other's view 才對呀!?
請指教!

and since the notes were written before Leibniz’ own development of calculus concepts and techniques, it is virtually certain that the traditional view is false. A more cautious conclusion than this is called for, however. Leibniz’ notes are limited to early sections of Newton’s book, sections that precede the ones in which Newton’s calculus concepts and techniques are presented.
我試著回答看看
藍色部分是作者陳述他人的看法,而到紅色however還有綠色部分,就是作者在講述自己的意見,作者認為前面他人說到[傳統觀點是錯的]這部份是沒問題的,只是他覺得還要更謹慎的探究,而這部份就是作者的意見囉

[Lory]

請問各位高手,
這題是從哪裡看出historian的態度?
根據micht大大的文章
似乎是根據It has traditionally been thought that these discoveries were independent.
可是這句以被動語態表示,根據徐老師的說法,應該是指other's view 才對呀!?
請指教!

and since the notes were written before Leibniz’ own development of calculus concepts and techniques, it is virtually certain that the traditional view is false. A more cautious conclusion than this is called for, however. Leibniz’ notes are limited to early sections of Newton’s book, sections that precede the ones in which Newton’s calculus concepts and techniques are presented.
我試著回答看看
藍色部分是作者陳述他人的看法,而到紅色however還有綠色部分,就是作者在講述自己的意見,作者認為前面他人說到[傳統觀點是錯的]這部份是沒問題的,只是他覺得還要更謹慎的探究,而這部份就是作者的意見囉

是的,贊成davidslin的觀點,重點就是他標顏色的那幾句話!!!!!!

不知道可否用直接看boldface來推前後文意答題,會不會比較快???
困惑中!!!!