※ 引述《dreamstar999 (啟程)》之銘言：
: Plant scientists have used genetic engineering on seeds to produce crop
: plants that are highly resistant to insect damage. *//Unfortunately, the seeds
: themselves are quite expensive, and the plants require more fertilizer and
: water to grow well than normal ones//*.
: Thus, for most farmers the savings on pesticides would not compensate for the higher seed costs and the cost of
: additional fertilizer.
: //However, since consumer demand for grains, fruits, and vegetables grown without the use of pesticides continues to rise, the use of
: genetically engineered seeds of this kind is likely to become widespread.//
: In the argument given, the two portions in boldface play which of the
: following roles?
: (A) The first supplies a context for the argument; the second is the
: argument's main conclusion.
: (B) The first introduces a development that the argument predicts will have a
: certain outcome; the second is a state of affairs that the argument denies
: will be part of that outcome.
: (C) The first presents a development that the argument predicts will have a
: certain outcome; the second acknowledges a consideration that weighs against
: that prediction.
: (D) The first provides evidence to support a prediction that the argument
: seeks to defend; the second is that prediction.
: (E) The first and the second each provide evidence to support the argument's
: main conclusion.
: BF段落我用*//以及//做區隔
: 這題我雖然是選了正確答案C
: 但爬文之後仍有疑問，manhattanprep上，雖有不少人問"predict"的定義，
: 但似乎沒有我碰到的問題
: 我的疑問在於，C選項的"that the argument predicts"應是關代引導的補充說明吧?
: 我的問題便出於此，第一個段落，應是指一個事實(也就是development)，
: 但為何可以是被predict的呢?已經確認的事實，何以再被預期?
: 再者，此處指的arguement究竟是哪裡呢?
: 懇請版上前輩指點一二QQ
: 感激
先把這題的基本架構寫出:
1. Fact (Background)
Plant scientists have used genetic engineering on seeds to produce crop
plants that are highly resistant to insect damage.
2. Problem (BF1 - 此題答案認定為 Develpment，之後造成 Prediction)
Unfortunately, the seeds themselves are quite expensive, and the plants
require more fertilizer and water to grow well than normal ones.
3. Effect (BF1 造成的一個預測 or 結果)
Thus, for most farmers the savings on pesticides would not compensate for
the higher seed costs and the cost of additional fertilizer.
4. Comparison - Another Effect (BF2)
However, since consumer demand for grains, fruits, and vegetables grown
without the use of pesticides continues to rise, the use of genetically
engineered seeds of this kind is likely to become widespread.
所以 BF1 (基因改造成本過高) 是作者預測，
會造成某一個結果 (成本高於省下的農藥) 的可能性。
BF2 則是提供不同觀點 (消費者喜歡無農藥蔬菜)
所以答案 (C) 符合答案架構
(C) The first presents a development that the argument predicts will
have a certain outcome; the second acknowledges a consideration that
weighs against that prediction.
再者，回答您兩個問題:
: 我的疑問在於，C選項的"that the argument predicts"應是關代引導的補充說明吧?
: 我的問題便出於此，第一個段落，應是指一個事實(也就是development)，
: 但為何可以是被predict的呢?已經確認的事實，何以再被預期?
: 再者，此處指的arguement究竟是哪裡呢?
1. that the argument predicts will have a certain outcome
在這裡不提太多英文文法，這裡的意思應該是指
argument 預測 (predicts) 這 development 會有一個結果
2. argument 在一個 BF 當中，其實不需特別去抓，
直接當作 "本文作者 (author)"來解釋即可
作者想要在文章中表達何者意義，那當然就是 arguemnt
3. 我認為這題，有許多可討論之處。
就我的想法，我認為 BF1 support 一個 prediction -
seed cost > pestcide saving
而 BF2 則是指出消費者喜歡沒有農藥的蔬菜，
來給另一層面的考量 (weighs against)
http://www.manhattanprep.com/gmat/forums/plant-scientists-have-used-genetic-engineering-on-seeds-t2270.html
在 Manhattan 的論壇當中，Ron 是認為
seed cost > pestcide saving 這是一個 Conclusion
而最後一句話反而是 Prediction
我個人認為這有許多可議之處 畢竟 BF1 和 BF2 根本沒有相關，
要怎麼使用 BF1 來 Predict BF2
更不用說 seed cost > pestcide saving 是在 However 之前，
通常不大可能當 Conclusion
所以他這個論點不斷的被美國鄉民 challenge
當然，CR 題目是比 SC 題目更難做一個完整的解釋 (主觀成分更多)
我認為就不必在這做個探討
但此題，其實不管 Prediction 和 Main Conclusion
到底分別是第三句還第四句
也只有 (C) 可以選，其他答案都不對
--
Donz 2015 1月全科機經班: http://ppt.cc/wwcn
Donz + Keewee 2015 四週速成實力寒假班: http://ppt.cc/2oGt
Donz GMAT FB: https://www.facebook.com/groups/DonzGMAT
--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc), 來自: 1.161.151.29
※ 文章網址: http://www.ptt.cc/bbs/GMAT/M.1419610183.A.6EB.html
※ 編輯: ndxica (1.161.151.29), 12/27/2014 00:11:52
※ 編輯: ndxica (1.161.151.29), 12/27/2014 10:22:37