
逻辑支持题,由文中信息可知SPEW的推理过程是:原本可控但却失控的工作条件,导致了工人铅中毒。另外SPEW也提出如果满足某些条件(工人们更仔细、更清洁,安全条例更严格地执行),铅中毒可以避免,选择表示类似意思的选项即可
A正确,支持了SPEW立场,即严格执行安全条例的工厂,铅中毒事件发生几率低。
B错误,SPEW未涉及other types of factories
C错误,SPEW未涉及household sources of lead
D错误,SPEW认为就因为白铅工厂的安全条例未得到严格执行,才导致了铅中毒。但是该选项意思相反
E错误,SPEW未提及brief exposure to the conditions
题目讨论 (4条评论)

-
432442ba
文段中划了高亮的句子,但不能只看高亮句子,因为后面有对controllable conditions的解释说明,你光盯着controllable conditions看是看不出所以然的
1
0 回复 2019-10-09 21:46:12
-
浪逐曲奇
文章结构梳理: WIDC did not count dangers, opposed. SPEW 也opposed。两者都反对上面的规定。(细节是SPEW 有evidence,现在我发现这个地方不重要,没必要看) 但 WTUL 支持。
0
0 回复 2019-08-24 18:58:27
-
浪逐曲奇
自己的错因分析:我看到A时就觉得同其他选项相比,只有它反映了题目要问的,但当时看到lowest最高级,有点犹豫,以为是个错误选项特征【无语】,最终没选。错选了D,因为我不认识stringent这个单词,以为它是“顽固”,就是以为 这个选项的意思是“该种工厂比其他工厂,在实施安规上更顽固,更不情愿。”但实际上,是说该种工厂在贯彻安规上更彻底,意思相反。
0
0 回复 2019-08-24 18:56:31
-
杀鸡大业
Also opposing the proposal was the Society for Promoting the Employment of Women (SPEW), which attempted to challenge it by investigating the causes of illness in white lead factories. SPEW contended, and WIDC concurred, that controllable conditions in such factories were responsible for the development of lead poisoning. SPEW provided convincing evidence that lead poisoning could be avoided if workers were careful and clean and if already extant workplace safety regulations were stringently enforced. 长长的定位,理解意思后发现和A一致。
0
0 回复 2017-10-06 19:55:50