2. 外语
  3. Researchers in City X recently discovered low levels of several pharmaceutical drugs in public drinking water supplies. However,

Researchers in City X recently discovered low levels of several pharmaceutical drugs in public drinking water supplies. However,

admin2022-10-18  27
问题 Researchers in City X recently discovered low levels of several pharmaceutical drugs in public drinking water supplies. However, the researchers argued that the drugs in the water were not a significant public health hazard. They pointed out that the drug levels were so low that they could only be detected with the most recent technology, which suggested that the drugs may have already been present in the drinking water for decades, even though they have never had any discernible health effects.
Which of the following, if true, would most strengthen the researchers’ reasoning?
选项 A、If a drug found in drinking water is not a significant public health hazard, then its presence in the water will not have any discernible heath effects.
B、There is no need to remove low levels of pharmaceutical drugs from public drinking water unless they present a significant public health hazard.
C、Even if a substance in drinking water is a public health hazard, scientists may not have discerned which adverse health effects, if any, it has caused.
D、Researchers using older, less sensitive technology detected the same drugs severa decades ago in the public drinking water of a neighboring town but could find no discernible health effects.
E、Samples of City X’s drinking water taken decades ago were tested with today’s most recent technology, and none of the pharmaceutical drugs were found.
答案D
解析 This question asks us to find the answer choice that would most strengthen this argument.
Researchers in City X reason that because the levels of certain pharmaceutical drugs that have been found in the city’s drinking water are so low—detectable only by use of the most recent technology—these drugs may well have been in the drinking water for decades. Furthermore, the researchers point out that there have been no discernible health effects from the use of the drugs. They conclude that the drugs are probably not a significant concern.
As it stands, the argument is quite weak. The researchers conclude only that the drugs may have. . . been present for decades. This leaves open the possibility that they were not present for that long. If they were not, then obviously the current lack of discernible health effects does not imply that there will be no such effects in the future.
We can strengthen the argument if we find solid information indicating that these drugs can be
present in a city’s drinking water at the levels found in City X’s drinking water, or higher, for a long time without presenting any ill health effects.
A    This choice does not strengthen the argument. Note that there have not been any discernible health effects from drinking the water; this fact is compatible with this statement as well as with the drug being a significant public health hazard. Perhaps the reason there have been no discernible health effects is that the drugs have only recently entered the water supply.
B    This choice does not strengthen the argument’s reasoning. Until we can establish that there is no significant health hazard— what the argument sets out to prove—we cannot know whether there is a need to remove these drugs from the drinking water.
C    This claim weakens the argument. It introduces the possibility that there may have been adverse health effects resulting from these drugs, yet the researchers have not been able to discern these effects, or have not been able to determine that they were effects of the drugs.
D    Correct. Researchers several decades ago, using less sensitive technology, were able to detect the same drugs in another town’s public drinking water. This implies that the drug levels in that town were higher than those recently detected in City X’s drinking water. Given that there have been no discernible health effects in this previous case, this lends support to the researchers’ reasoning regarding City X.
E    This claim weakens the argument; it suggests that the drugs are a relatively new presence in the water. Therefore, the effects of these drugs might not have had time to arise.
The correct answer is D.
转载请注明原文地址:https://jikaoti.com/ti/8NdYFFFM
本试题收录于： GMAT VERBAL题库GMAT分类
0

GMAT VERBAL

GMAT

相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)