[問題]天山7-Q11

[josephcfan]

In 1992 outlaw fishing boats began illegally harvesting lobsters from the territorial waters of the country of Belukia. Soon after, the annual tonnage of lobster legally harvested in Belukian waters began declining; in 1996, despite there being no reduction in the level of legal lobster fishing activity, the local catch was 9,000 tons below pre-1992 levels. It is
therefore highly likely that the outlaw fishing boats harvested about 9,000 tons of lobster illegally that year.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

A. The illegal lobster harvesting was not so extensive that the population of catchable lobsters in Belukia’s territorial waters had sharply declined by 1996.

B. The average annual lobster catch, in tons, of an outlaw fishing boat has increased steadily since 1992.

C. Outlaw fishing boats do not, as a group, harvest more lobsters than do licensed lobster-fishing boats.

D. The annual legal lobster harvest in Belukia in 1996 was not significantly less than 9,000 tons.

E. A significant proportion of Belukia’s operators of licensed lobster-fishing boats went out of business between 1992 and 1996

想請問一下(A)的意思是"非法捕撈並沒有多到讓龍蝦數量急劇減少的程度。這樣就正好說明了題意，因為龍蝦總數量不變，合法捕撈減少的龍蝦數量就正好被非法捕撈的人給弄走了"真的是如此解讀的嗎？
我看的意思跟他完全相反,各位大大請幫忙解釋一下好嗎
not so .... that 的意思是"如此不...以致於..."嗎？？

[JS]

The answer is A.

Because, if the illegal fishing activity of 1992 caused the lobster population to reduce dramatically, it can then be the reason of the declining lobster tonnage in 1996. So, in order for the conclusion to be a valid one, the author has to presume that the illegal fishing activity of 1992 did not cause the reduction of the lobster population. So that the author can claim that the “current” (1996 ) illegal fishing caused the reduction of the lobster tonnage.

I hope you can understand, because it is not easy to explain.

[Calvin]

I agree w/ JS.

[fiona]

請問d不行的原因是因為題目
in 1996, despite there being no reduction in the level of legal lobster fishing activity, the local catch was 9,000 tons below pre-1992 levels.

這句我不是很了解
這句有說明legal捕蝦量沒有下降嘛(LEGAL量=LOCAL CATCH?)
請指教..

[維尼]

請問d不行的原因是因為題目
in 1996, despite there being no reduction in the level of legal lobster fishing activity, the local catch was 9,000 tons below pre-1992 levels.

這句我不是很了解
這句有說明legal捕蝦量沒有下降嘛(LEGAL量=LOCAL CATCH?)
請指教..

題目那句話只是提供一個前提
就是下降產量不是因為減少補魚
所以D選項是無關選項

[papa]

不懂哇!!!!
我覺得(a)好怪阿
A. The illegal lobster harvesting was not so extensive that the population of catchable lobsters in Belukia’s territorial waters had sharply declined by 1996.
==> 這句翻譯不是說 非法捕魚並沒有很廣泛 導致 漁獲量在1996年會有顯著的減少嗎????

是不是HAD 要改成HAD NOT 阿????!!!

[維尼]

不懂哇!!!!
我覺得(a)好怪阿
A. The illegal lobster harvesting was not so extensive that the population of catchable lobsters in Belukia’s territorial waters had sharply declined by 1996.
==> 這句翻譯不是說 非法捕魚並沒有很廣泛 導致 漁獲量在1996年會有顯著的減少嗎????

是不是HAD 要改成HAD NOT 阿????!!!

簡單的說
A提供的前提是: 合法數量的減少並不是因為魚量減少
這樣才推得出原題減少的魚量是被非法補魚撈走了

[zachary]

不懂哇!!!!
我覺得(a)好怪阿
A. The illegal lobster harvesting was not so extensive that the population of catchable lobsters in Belukia’s territorial waters had sharply declined by 1996.
==> 這句翻譯不是說 非法捕魚並沒有很廣泛 導致 漁獲量在1996年會有顯著的減少嗎????

是不是HAD 要改成HAD NOT 阿????!!!

簡單的說
A提供的前提是: 合法數量的減少並不是因為魚量減少
這樣才推得出原題減少的魚量是被非法補魚撈走了

恩，可不可以在多做深一點解釋...
題目的意思是（我認為的啦）：
92年的非法捕龍蝦讓當年的合法捕龍蝦的收穫量降低
在96年時，雖然合法捕龍蝦的活動沒有降低，
但捕獲量卻比92年之前的少9000頓
所以很有可能的是在96年非法的補量等於那9000頓

那題目問的是這個argument是以下列何者為前提？
（A）這個選項我真的‧真的看不懂耶...
它指的是：
這非法捕獲的並沒有多到讓96年的捕獲量有明顯減少 （是這樣嗎？..）

那，維尼大大所說的『合法數量的減少並不是因為魚量減少』這個我懂，
但是怎麼從題目推呢？且，這跟（A）的關連在哪？..
我做的時候選了（C）...非法的沒有捕蝦超過合法的多....I know it stinks but真的不曉得如何選到（A）

[吳]

[In 1992 outlaw fishing boats began illegally harvesting lobsters from the territorial waters of the country of Belukia. Soon after, the annual tonnage of lobster legally harvested in Belukian waters began declining;in 1996, despite there being no reduction in the level of legal lobster fishing activity, the local catch was 9,000 tons below pre-1992 levels. It is therefore highly likely that the outlaw fishing boats harvested about 9,000 tons of lobster illegally that year.

=>非法1996=全部漁獲量1992'-合法1996=9000

A.The illegal lobster harvesting was not so extensive that the population of catchable lobsters in Belukia’s territorial waters had sharply declined by 1996.
=>每年漁獲量變動不大
=>1992捕的跟1996的量差不多

要推出非法魚貨量
非法1996=全部漁獲量1996-合法1996

題目:非法1996=全部漁獲量1992'-合法1996
A:1992捕的跟1996的量差不多
=>題目才成立=>否則不能用1992的資料推出1996的非法魚貨量

好像寫的有點複雜:不過考的就是"ALL THINGS are EQUAL"

[melanie0420]

吳老大
您說這樣 我就很明白了!!!!!!!套一句CD網友常說的話: 這題還挺繞的!!

[小花]

看完前輩的討論還是不懂?

in 1996, despite there being no reduction in the level of legal lobster fishing activity, the local catch was 9,000 tons below pre-1992 levels. It is therefore highly likely that the outlaw fishing boats harvested about 9,000 tons of lobster illegally that year.


the local catch 是指1996年的總漁獲量嗎?

[阿琪]

題目有時間點的差異時…就要注意它是否為重點…


<設想>
5年前魚池裡有10隻魚~偷捕魚的人來抓魚~5年後偷捕魚的人還可以抓8隻 (那前題假設不就是這魚池裡的魚在這5年內沒有大量的減少(被偷)，如果真大量減少，那還可有8隻嗎？，如果大量的減少…連生都來不及了，第5年1隻都沒有了)

<本題>
1992年有x隻…偷捕魚的來抓魚~結論：1996年偷捕魚還可以抓到9000隻 (假設就很明顯啦！到了1996年 (by 1996) not so extensive that the population of catchable lobsters in Belukia’s territorial waters had sharply declined )

註：
the local catch 是指"合法業者"1996年的漁獲量，但不是總的喔！

參考唄！

[Huang Hsin-Yi]

很琪講的很對

說1996比1992的合法補獲量少9000頓
得出1996年不合法的補獲量就是9000頓
必需假設
1993-1995年之間沒有大量的不合法撈補才行

基本上這是數學問題拉

[sunnyblue13s]

(A) 的by 1996.....指的應該是"1996之前"的意思吧!?

[Huang Hsin-Yi]

(A) 的by 1996.....指的應該是"1996之前"的意思吧!
對阿,所以才說1993-1995阿
?