|
> ＣＲの問題です。
> よろしくお願いします。
>
> 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 organisms. 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 our oil reserves?
>
> (A)Most geologists think optimistically about the Earth's reserves of oil.
> (B)Most geologists have performed accurate chemical 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.
>
> Anser:E
>
> Eが本文を強めているように思えないので教えてください。
> 「buried hydrocarbons と other complex hydrocarbons は同程度にそのvolumeを減らしているので」
> というのはつまり、
> 同じ割合で減っていけば、現在の状態「other complex hydrocarbonの量がburied organismsの量より多い」は変わらないため、結論「geologistが信じているよりも（実際の）oil reservesは多い」は強められると考えればよいのでしょうか？
> geologistが考えている以上に減ってしまえば結論は成り立たないような気がするのですが。。。
>
それでいいのだと思います。
少し整理すると、
地質学者は、
hydrocarbons from buried organisms(A)→through chemical transformation→oil(C)
と信じ、
この筆者は、
other complex hydrocarbons(B)→through bacteria→oil(D)
と仮定しています。
最初の量がB>Aであるならば、もしoilに変わる途中で減らす量がB,Aともに同じ比率なら(Dならば)、最後に出てくるoilの量もD>Cとなって筆者の結論を強く支持すると思うので。
|
