[問題]天山9-32(BF題)

[shena]

Q32:
Ecologist: The Scottish Highlands were once the site of extensive forests, but these forests have mostly disappeared and been replaced by peat bogs. The common view is that the Highlands’ deforestation was caused by human activity, especially agriculture. However, agriculture began in the Highlands less than 2,000 years ago. Peat bogs, which consist of compressed decayed vegetable matter, build up by only about one foot
per 1,000 years and, throughout the Highlands, remains of trees in peat bogs are almost all at depths great than four feet. Since climate changes that occurred between 7,000 and 4,000 years ago favored the development of peat bogs rather than the survival of forests, the deforestation was more likely the result of natural processes than of human activity.

In the ecologist’s argument the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?

A. The first is evidence that has been used in support of a position that the ecologist rejects; the second is a finding that the ecologist uses to counter that evidence.
B. The first is evidence that, in light of the evidence provided in the second, serves as grounds for the ecologist’s rejection of a certain position.
C. The first is a position that the ecologist rejects; the second is evidence that has been used in support of that position.
D. The first is a position that the ecologist rejects; the second provides evidence in support of that rejection.
E. The first is a position for which the ecologist argues; the second provides evidence to support that position.

Answer:B

救郎唷~~霧煞煞的BF題又出現了...
我的思路是The first is NOT a position that the ecologist rejects
所以排除ACD
BE就不知如何判斷了

[evelight]

E: the position for which the ecologist argues 是什麼position讓生態學家爭論？
應該是這一句
The common view is that the Highlands’ deforestation was caused by human activity, especially agriculture.
所以E的前半段就錯了

E的後半段也錯
因為BF1和BF1都反駁common view
我想shena大概是誤會了common view就是生態學家的立場

整篇結構是這樣的:
生態學家首先提出一個現象
The Scottish Highlands were once the site of extensive forests, but these forests have mostly disappeared and been replaced by peat bogs.
再提出目前common view對此現象的成因解釋
The common view is that the Highlands’ deforestation was caused by human activity, especially agriculture.
但是生態學家並不認同這樣的解釋
However,......
用BF1+BF2反駁了common view
(只有BF1不夠，要提出兩個在高地互相矛盾的evidence才能反駁)
接著為剛才的反駁提出進一步的support
Since,.....

[Calvin]

同意evelight的解釋

BF1 and BF2都是支持ecologists反駁common view的evidence

有問題歡迎再提出喔！

[studentC]

利用 skimming skill:

基本上 C, D, E 是一樣的. 不可能選了 C, 不選 D, E. 所以他們都不是答案.
那就只剩下 A, B 了. A 明顯不對. 因此選 B.

[suechi915]

這題的確可以投機取巧直接消去 得到答案

不過我還是錯...
我本認為1st BF是一個position...
因為他直接反駁不是人類活動造成的
選到D

如何判別哩
position是否是說含有作者的態度在裡頭???
而evidence是數據證據的細節?

另外 總覺得in light of (鑒於??)怪怪的
1st BF in light of 2nd BF
邏輯上怎麼說才通哩?

謝謝

[yaokk]

因為這段話都是ecologist講的，所以知道這一題中ecologist的position。
當他說了有一個common view xxx....However, ...就知道他不支持這個common view囉~

很明顯兩句都是在支持ecologist說的話：沒有森林是因為自然因素，不是人為破壞。
只有B是說兩句都是證據且支持。
B的 in light of 應該是說：由第二句話中提供的證據可知，第一句是為ecologist反對某種立場建立基礎的證據。
A中的第二句前半段是對的，它是一種finding，但ecologist用來支持自己的說法，而不是counter，所以不能選。

[Jen-Cheng]

請問一下，BF1和BF2的關系，如何用answerB去理解..不太了解這兩句之間logic

[la-vie]

請問一下，BF1和BF2的關系，如何用answerB去理解..不太了解這兩句之間logic

試著回答一下...

B:依照BF2提供的evidence,所以BF1為ecologists提供理由來反駁common view

也就是說:因為知道throughout the Highlands,remains of trees in peat bogs are almost all at depths great than four feet, 所以可以利用 agriculture began in the Highlands less than 2,000 years ago 當做理由,來駁斥ㄧ般認為是人為的破壞。

[dibert8]

peat bog 泥煤田

BF1= evidence1
BF2= evidence2

(A) However => BF1 不會 support 前句 (position); BF2 沒有否定 BF1 (證據也不會互相反駁).
(B) BF1 + BF2 反駁 position (the Highlands’ deforestation was caused by human activity)
(C) (D) (E) BF1 不是 position