GMAT 一道CR,help~Most geologists believe oil results from chemical transformations of hydrocarbons derived from organisms buried under ancient seas. Suppose, instead, that oil actually results from bacterial action on other complex hydrocarbons tha
来源:学生作业帮助网 编辑:六六作业网 时间:2024/11/26 18:57:24
GMAT 一道CR,help~Most geologists believe oil results from chemical transformations of hydrocarbons derived from organisms buried under ancient seas. Suppose, instead, that oil actually results from bacterial action on other complex hydrocarbons tha
GMAT 一道CR,help~
Most geologists believe oil results from chemical transformations of hydrocarbons derived from organisms buried under ancient seas. Suppose, instead, that oil actually results from bacterial action on other complex hydrocarbons that are trapped within the Earth. As is well known, the volume of these hydrocarbons exceeds that of buried organ- isms. Therefore, our oil reserves would be greater than most geologists believe.
Which of the following, if true, gives the strongest support to the argument above about our oil reserves?
(A) Most geologists think optimistically about the Earth’s reserves of oil.
(B) Most geologists have performed accurate chem- ical analyses on previously discovered oil reserves.
(C) Ancient seas are buried within the Earth at many places where fossils are abundant.
(D) The only bacteria yet found in oil reserves could have leaked down drill holes from surface contaminants.
(E) Chemical transformations reduce the volume of buried hydrocarbons derived from organisms by roughly the same proportion as bacterial action reduces the volume of other complex
hydrocarbons.
OA是E,我选得C,搞不懂E到底怎么就支持结论了?
我觉得E说的是化学变化减少了被埋有机物的hydrocarbon规模,减少比例和细菌对hydrocarbon减少的规模相同.E里面好像没有提到organism和bacterial转化成oil啊.我不明白这个和转换比率有什么关系?
GMAT 一道CR,help~Most geologists believe oil results from chemical transformations of hydrocarbons derived from organisms buried under ancient seas. Suppose, instead, that oil actually results from bacterial action on other complex hydrocarbons tha
题干:
geologists 认为 oil来自 古海底organisms的化学转化
作者反驳:如果 oil来组 其他hydrocarbons的转化,而H的量远比O的量要大
因此OIL的量要比前者预计的多
明显可以看出,文章的逻辑线如下:
H>O
H产生的oil>O产生的oil
很明显的忽略了H和O转化效率的因素.并不一定多H多,产生的oil就多.
所以可以填补这个漏洞的选项,就是支持.
E:H和O转化的比率是一样的.
于是填补了漏洞,支持.
至于C---古seas被埋在化石很丰富的地方.跟本题的逻辑链无关.