题库> 逻辑 CR> CR-e5iibk

题目选项分析

Naturalist: For several years, coyote have had a robust population throughout the Susquehanna National Forest. Over the past seven years, the Canic Chemical Corporation in nearby Harrisville has been releasing low levels of bromide compounds into the air and groundwater. Some of these compounds, in sufficient concentrations, are suspected of compromising the immune systems of young coyote. A recent study over the entire forest established that 30% of young coyote did not survive their first year of life. Clearly, the bromide compounds released by Canic pose a direct threat to the well-being of coyote in the forest.

The answer to which of the following would be most useful for evaluating the naturalist's reasoning?

【选项】What percentage of healthy coyote survive to adulthood in the wild?

选项是否正确?

答对用户笔记

torirain
0人
torirain 2020-11-29 12:19:19
要将30%这个数和自然/正常情况下的比例进行比较,确定30%这个数是高了还是低了,才可以看是否与bromide有关
如果30%高了,那么可能和bromide有关;
如果30%低了,那么就不能说bromide对boyote有害
lyf19981012
0人
lyf19981012 2020-06-15 10:44:35
这应该是样本代表性的问题吧,文章中说有百分之三十的coyote没有活过一岁。结论是compound对于整个coyote的健康都有影响。这显然是样本代表性不足的问题,年轻的coyote不能代表整体的coyote。所以要知道整体的coyote的健康是否会受影响,还要看成年的coyote的健康有没有受到影响
StarryNight1125
0人
StarryNight1125 2019-08-30 15:07:06
自己的理解:
因为文中说的30%死亡率是污染情况下的一个绝对值,我们如果要说明污染确实威胁到了健康(死亡率更高),我们应该进行对照实验,也就是看没有污染情况下(wild)的死亡率。
1)如果这个数值不低于30%,削弱结论(不是因为污染)
2)如果这个数值低于30%,加强结论(污染威胁到健康的可能性增大)

题目基本信息

  • 所属科目:逻辑CR
  • 题目来源1:Magoosh-28
难度:难
Get Microsoft Silverlight