推 lynzie:(D)論點意指carpentry較差的hotel可能因年代久遠已毀壞 04/14 23:48
→ lynzie:所以1930前的hotel留下來的都是好的,但不表示1930前不好的 04/14 23:50
→ lynzie:就有比較少。 這裡是用另一觀點去削弱原作者的比較基準 04/14 23:50
推 lynzie:(E)暗示當學徒較久可能學得較扎實,所以反而有強化原文論點 04/14 23:55
Guidebook Writer: I have visited hotels throughout the country and have
noticed that in those built before 1930 the quality of the original carpentry
work is generally superior to that in hotels built afterward. Clearly
carpenters working on hotels before 1930 typically worked with more skill,
care, and effort than carpenters who have worked on hotels built
subsequently.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the guidebook writer’
s argument?
(A) The quality of original carpentry in hotels is generally far superior to
the quality of original carpentry in other structures, such as houses and
stores.
(B) Hotels built since 1930 can generally accommodate more guests than those
built before 1930.
(C) The materials available to carpenters working before 1930 were not
significantly different in quality from the materials available to carpenters
working after 1930.
(D) The better the quality of original carpentry in a building, the less
likely that building is to fall into disuse and be demolished.
(E) The average length of apprenticeship for carpenters has declined
significantly since 1930.
Built before 1930的 carpenters working都比較好
---->表示bofore 1930的worked with more skill, care and effort
問Weaken
(A)和other structures無關
(B)跟能容納多少客人無關
(C)materials before 1930和after一樣, 無關
(D)原始的carpentary越好, 這間hotel就有比較低的可能被拋棄不用
--->用另外一個原因說明why before 1930 的carpentary 都比較好
想請問最後一個選項:
(E)apprenticeship的平均時間減少
無法成立是因為, 並沒有說明carpenters working before 1930比較好嗎????!
有點想不通!!!!
前面幾個選項有分析錯誤請各位指點!!!
謝謝:)
--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc)
◆ From: 36.231.172.132