GMAT逻辑题练习及答案(359)

2017-08-17 09:37

来源：新东方在线

作者：

　 GMAT逻辑题目:

　　Nature constantly adjusts the atmospheric carbon level. Anincrease in the level causes the atmosphere to hold more heat, which causesmore water to evaporate from the oceans, which causes increased rain. Rainwashes some carbon from the air into the oceans, where it eventually becomespart of the seabed. A decrease in atmosphere carbon causes decreasedevaporation from the oceans, which cause less rain, and thus less carbon iswashed into the oceans. Yet some environmentalists worry that burning fossilfuels may raise atmospheric carbon to a dangerous level. It is true that a sustainedincrease would threaten human life. But the environmentalists shouldrelax---nature will continually adjust the carbon level.

　　Which one of the following, if true, would most weaken theargument in the passage?

　　A. Plant life cannotsurvive without atmospheric carbon.

　　B. It is not clearthat breathing excess carbon in the atmosphere will have a negative effect onhuman life.

　　C. Carbon is part ofthe chemical “blanket” that keeps the Earth warm enough to sustain human life.

　　D. Breathing byanimals releases almost 30 times as much carbon as does the burning of fossilfuels.

　　E. The naturaladjustment process, which occurs over millions of years, allow widefluctuations in the carbon level in the short term.

　　参考答案:E

　　思路：In my view, the reasoning in this argument is that:

　　nature will continually adjust the carbon level a sustainedincrease in the level of carbon would not threaten human life.

　　The statement of E points out that even the nature willcontinually adjust the carbon level, wide fluctuations in the carbon level inthe short term will exert the remarkable negative to the human life.(Commonsense tells us that the life of human is often less than 100 years)

　　So, E is the correct chose.

　　A. is out of scope.

　　B. to some extend, support the argument. Because we can notassure that breathing excess carbon in the atmosphere will have a negativeeffect on human life, even the excess carbon may not have the a negative effecton human life. Another logical flaw in the statement of B is out of scope.

　　C. to some extend, support the argument.

　　D is out of scope. If so , we should kill more animals toprevent the “Green House”.

以上就是本文的全部内容，更多精彩请随时关注新东方长春学校官网。