熱血背包客莊ㄟ

To protect beachfront buildings from ocean storms, ocean resorts have built massive seawalls between beaches and the buildings. Not only do the seawalls block off some buildings' ocean view, but the beaches themselves become ever narrower, because sand can no longer creep inland as storms erode it at the water's edge.

If the information is correct, which of the following conclusions is most strongly supported on the basis of it?

(A) Since the ferocity of ocean storms is increasing, increasingly high seawalls must be built between beaches and beachfront property.

(B) Even when beaches are heavily used by people, they are necessary to the survival of the many wild species that use them.

(C) Seawalls constructed to protect beachfront buildings will not themselves eventually be damaged by storms and will not require, if they are to protect the buildings, expensive repair or replacement.

(D) The conservation of beaches for future generations should be the overriding goal of shore management at ocean coasts.

(E) Trying to protect beachfront buildings by constructing seawalls is counterproductive in the long run for an oceanfront community wishing to maintain itself as a beach resort.

logic book style

Premise1：To protect beachfront buildings from ocean storms, ocean resorts have built massive seawalls between beaches and the buildings.

Premise2： because sand can no longer creep inland as storms erode it at the water's edge.

Conclusion：Not only do the seawalls block off some buildings' ocean view, but the beaches themselves become ever narrower

中文對照：

前提一：防暴所以建海牆（這前方的不定詞片語其實也可以拉出來當作另一個前提，這裡就濃縮了）

前提二：沙不入內

結論：海牆檔視線，沙少

再來把一些混淆視聽的東西去除，irrelevancies，inconsisten，cross-references給找出來並調整，不過這裡不太需要去蕪存菁了，感覺上都滿精簡

分類完之後就是找連貫性（coherence），牆跟沙之間的消長，然後題目問support，解題方式跟weaken相反，也就是說整個argument在連貫性的要求下，必須是前提描述為真，且結論描述不為假

選項：老樣子由（Ａ）開始出發

(A) Since the ferocity of ocean storms is increasing, increasingly high seawalls must be built between beaches and beachfront property.

沒連貫性可言，這句話跑去做牆壁跟暴風雨間的連結，並且違背前提一所描述的關係邏輯，前提一講的是有風強會有強，選項（Ａ）卻說風越大強越高，邏輯不互通，謝謝再聯絡

(B) Even when beaches are heavily used by people, they are necessary to the survival of the many wild species that use them.

主角是強哥啊，不是人跟野生動物，銘謝惠顧

(C) Seawalls constructed to protect beachfront buildings will not themselves eventually be damaged by storms and will not require, if they are to protect the buildings, expensive repair or replacement.

作者不是建築工會理事長，或是國家道路交通發展管理委員會的審核單位，文章不是在討論花多少錢，不是要提案交付立法院審核的預算案，這就是典型的irrelevant twaddle，表面上看的該有的主詞都出現，可是在講另一件事情

(D) The conservation of beaches for future generations should be the overriding goal of shore management at ocean coasts.

選項主詞是海灘保育，文章前提一是保護海景第一排，直接說掰掰拉，其二你如果把這句話當作結論放在原結論的後面，乍看之下好像合理，但是這樣完成了一個任務distortion，扭曲原文是不行的。所謂結論就是文章作者認為真的描述，而前提是支持結論的句子，所以把原本作者認為是真的東西，提到變成支持選項的句子，結論更改內容自然扭曲。

(E) Trying to protect beachfront buildings by constructing seawalls is counterproductive in the long run for an oceanfront community wishing to maintain itself as a beach resort.

就剩他了，此句簡單說結合前提一跟結論的要點，選（Ｅ）

我認為GRE的錯誤選項是定義上的問題，角色扮演上的錯誤，而不是翻譯內容上的瑕疵讓他產生錯誤，所以要從定義著手才是王道，以上個人筆記希望有幫助到大家，文章內容中英夾雜請見諒，有誤再請指教!!