熱血背包客莊ㄟ

Theorists are divided concerning the origin of the Moon. Some hypothesize that the Moon was formed in the same way as were the planets in the inner solar system (Mercury, Venus, Mars, and Earth)—from planet-forming materials in the presolar nebula. But, unlike the cores of the inner planets, the Moon‘s core contains little or no iron, while the typical planet-forming materials were quite rich in iron. Other theorists propose that the Moon was ripped out of the Earth‘s rocky mantle by the Earth‘s collision with another large celestial body after much of the Earth‘s iron fell to its core. One problem with the collision hypothesis is the question of how a satellite formed in this way could have settled into the nearly circular orbit that the Moon has today. Fortunately, the collision hypothesis is testable. If it is true, the mantle rocks of the Moon and the Earth should be the same geochemically. 

For the following question, consider each of the choices separately and select all that apply

1. According to the passage, Mars and the Earth are similar in which of the following ways?

(A) Their satellites were formed by collisions with other celestial bodies.

(B) Their cores contain iron.

(C) They were formed from the presolar nebula.

2. The author implies that a nearly circular orbit is unlikely for a satellite that

(A) circles one of the inner planets

(B) is deficient in iron

(C) is different from its planet geochemically

(D) was formed by a collision between two celestial bodies

(E) was formed out of the planet-forming materials in the presolar nebula

3. Which of the following, if true, would be most likely to make it difficult to verify the collision hypothesis in the manner suggested by the author?

(A) The Moon‘s core and mantle rock are almost inactive geologically.

(B) The mantle rock of the Earth has changed in composition since the formation of the Moon, while the mantle rock of the Moon has remained chemically inert.

(C) Much of the Earth‘s iron fell to the Earth‘s core long before the formation of the Moon, after which the Earth‘s mantle rock remained unchanged.

(D) Certain of the Earth‘s elements, such as platinum, gold, and iridium, followed iron to the Earth‘s core.

(E) The mantle rock of the Moon contains elements such as platinum, gold, and iridium.

結構分析：

本文出得很簡單而且內容也不難，不過他有一題邏輯單題還滿有意思的，很有代表性

Theorists are divided concerning the origin of the Moon.

這裡講述到有意見分歧之處，文章開頭點出divide表示等等可以期待文章會就各學家的各門派去做介紹，不信的話，由下面一句的開頭也可以略知一二，Some hypothesize.....這個Some就是Some Theorists，那他們在爭什麼議題，就是後方綠色部分the origin of the Moon.以上大致上就是文章主題給的方向。

Some hypothesize that the Moon was formed in the same way as were the planets in the inner solar system (Mercury, Venus, Mars, and Earth)—from planet-forming materials in the presolar nebula.

因為上一句話只給了方向，但是我們還不知道分歧之後的對立論點，所以這句話還是要耐心看下去，不過慶幸的是(Mercury, Venus, Mars, and Earth)—from “planet-forming” materials in the presolar nebula.這些都謝謝再聯絡，因為一些是括號內的東西，一些是破折號的東西，然後“planet-forming”這是複合形容詞：形成行星的....，所以句尾破折號—from...，也表示對前方的句子做補充說明，就是『等號』的意思，就是說月亮跟類地行星一樣都是由這個來的materials in the presolar nebula，當中nebula就醫學角度來說就是胡適先生得過的眼翳病，他老媽舔完之後眼睛就好了，假設以天文角度來說，他是一個人物，曾經出現在『星際異攻隊二』裡面，那個綠色女主角的妹妹，如果就通俗的表示他只不過就是ＰＭ2.5之類的東西，就是雜質拉～～生物學角度來說他就是feces，經生物的消化作用後由生物的菊花排出的雜質，屁王之王，沒放屁頭殼會暈，屁話說完了，整理一下：第一觀點出爐，月亮成因跟類地行星一樣。

But, unlike the cores of the inner planets, the Moon‘s core contains little or no iron, while the typical planet-forming materials were quite rich in iron.

轉折出現，必看，很可能要接者表示其他觀點了，開頭的介系詞片語說不對喔，一點都不像，好了看到這裡以下忽略，我只是在抓架構，沒必要說不像的差異是差在哪，題目有問到再說，所以這轉換語氣了，等等其他理論一定如雨後春筍般出現，也就是因為unlike the cores of the inner planets,讓我更確定本文章是在做各個個觀點的意見陳述及反駁。

Other theorists propose that the Moon was ripped out of the Earth‘s rocky mantle by the Earth‘s collision with another large celestial body after much of the Earth‘s iron fell to its core.

這句話請找到這個就好 by the Earth‘s collision，還記得我們的主題句是在爭論月亮怎麼來的吧，所以by這個字中文就是『藉由』的意思具有由來，來源的表示，其他理當在考試時忽略，例如說 was ripped out of the Earth‘s rocky mantle這不就是呼應主題句的 the origin，那我何必看。總結，理論二：月亮是地球撞擊的關係。我不管誰撞誰，反正就是有『撞』的動作出現，由維基百科對於謂語的定義：謂語則用來對主詞加以陳述，來說明主語「是什麼」「做什麼」或「怎麼樣」，所以collision就是對Moon得責任歸屬。

One problem with the collision hypothesis is the question of how a satellite formed in this way could have settled into the nearly circular orbit that the Moon has today.

這裡開頭提到問題出來了，所以又準備要反駁那個月球的撞擊測試，那至於反駁點是怎樣，也是等等有考到再說，只要知道有人又對 the collision hypothesis有意見即可，民主社會啊～～哈哈

Fortunately, the collision hypothesis is testable.

Fortunately,這個字面上翻做『好在』，所以文章再次做轉折，那他的轉折點是誰就要根據主詞判斷，我們看到collision，所以是延續上文的撞擊理論，結論是可以成立

If it is true, the mantle rocks of the Moon and the Earth should be the same geochemically. 

前方的IF開頭副詞條件子句是在對上一句的collision說他是對的會有啥結果出現，這時候我們就要看了，因為後面表示文章結論，考慮到地質化學性，『月球＝地球』，喔～卡麗熙，你是我的星和月，卓戈將騎著駿馬帶著卡麗熙征服地球直到角落。

第一題：

問到火星＝月球的條件是啥，所以是要找到collision理論之前的東西，因此（Ａ）by collisions必錯，就文章分割來說，前後已經明顯將兩理論分開了，在Ａ論點出現Ｂ論點的東西，這種拼裝車的選項不可能成立。再來主詞也錯誤，月亮就是衛星啊，根本沒拿他們的衛星做比對，這裡有拿他們的某部分做比對的句子只有，But, unlike the cores of the inner planets, the Moon‘s core contains little or no iron, while the typical planet-forming materials were quite rich in iron.但是因為題目要求是火星＝月球，這是必要條件，所以他們要相同的話，屬性也要相同，因此iron也要很多，(B) Their cores contain iron.要選。(C) They were formed from the presolar nebula.這個太明顯了，本題選（Ｂ）（Ｃ）

第二題：

這是個推理題，而且有對象出現the nearly circular orbit，立馬定位到這句：

One problem with the collision hypothesis is the question of how a satellite formed in this way could have settled into the nearly circular orbit that the Moon has today.

然後題目的unlike表示否定的疑問，所以對到了problem，unlike和problem邏輯同向，重點：等等文章提到problem的內容就是unlike的答案了，句子裡problem後面接著等價the question of how a satellite formed in this way，然後當中的this way，往前找代名詞代替對象，首先要看 formed in this way，整個文章探討形成的論點只有兩個，其一是太空灰，其二是地球撞，然後本句隸屬於 the collision hypothesis的管轄，所以理當是撞擊理論，這樣答案也就出現了，（Ａ）（Ｂ）（Ｃ）最先排除，推理題都要去考慮到剛對話所對應到的主旨，那我們的主旨是form，如果連主旨都沒出現直接幹掉，（Ｄ）有個collision，所以選（Ｄ）

第三題：

這個邏輯單題make it difficult to verify就是等於weaken的意思。

請找一個對衝撞理論達成削弱效果的句子，所以第一步一定要先把所有衝撞理論有關的內容都找出來，因為邏輯題型會考慮到一個重點就是：coherence，他們之間彼此都有圍繞共同的主題連貫下來。所以以下

Other theorists propose that the Moon was ripped out of the Earth‘s rocky mantle by the Earth‘s collision with another large celestial body after much of the Earth‘s iron fell to its core. One problem with the collision hypothesis is the question of how a satellite formed in this way could have settled into the nearly circular orbit that the Moon has today. Fortunately, the collision hypothesis is testable. If it is true, the mantle rocks of the Moon and the Earth should be the same geochemically. 

這些都要考慮到，接著要開始分類成logic book style的模式，也就是前提跟結論先分清楚，以下

premise1：Other theorists propose that the Moon was ripped out of the Earth‘s rocky mantle by the Earth‘s collision with another large celestial body after much of the Earth‘s iron fell to its core.

premise2：One problem with the collision hypothesis is the question of how a satellite formed in this way could have settled into the nearly circular orbit that the Moon has today

premise3：Fortunately, the collision hypothesis is testable.

premise4：If it is true,

conclusion： the mantle rocks of the Moon and the Earth should be the same geochemically. 

以上內容還是太多，所以再進一步把廢話跟累贅清理一下

premise1：Other theorists propose that the Moon was ripped out of the Earth‘s rocky mantle by the Earth‘s collision with another large celestial body after much of the Earth‘s iron fell to its core.

premise2：One problem with the collision hypothesis is the question of how a satellite formed in this way could have settled into the nearly circular orbit that the Moon has today（因為他被下面的testable給轉折回來，所以它的存在變成沒意義，對作者來說問題已不在）

premise3：Fortunately, the collision hypothesis is testable.

premise4：If it is true,（這個必存在，IF開頭本來就是條件子句，他其實有在暗指假設沒有testable，我們的結論會不成立）

conclusion： the mantle rocks of the Moon and the Earth should be the same geochemically. 

最終版：

premise1： the Moon was ripped out of the Earth‘s rocky mantle by the Earth‘s collision with another large celestial body after much of the Earth‘s iron fell to its core.

premise2：the collision hypothesis is testable.

premise3：If the collision hypothesis is true

conclusion：the mantle rocks of the Moon and the Earth should be the same geochemically. 

解題方式：

首先每個選項在選擇時一定要注意到他的連貫性，這裡連貫性已經很明顯了就是那個collision之後的那些石頭the rocks，Ｍ跟Ｅ的結果如何。If you smell what The Rock is cooking?

第二，要達成weaken，這表示前提或是結論當中有問題，不一定要同時發生，所以可以自行假設文章當中的前提描述都是真的嗎 ？如果不真就是削弱。

第三，對於結論的部分，如果是削弱邏輯，那結論一定不扎實（invalid），這也意味著對結論句質疑，質疑成功，削弱成行。

(A) The Moon‘s core and mantle rock are almost inactive geologically.

有核core的概念是前提一，可是很明顯的前提一跟選項（Ａ）兩者講的是不一樣的事情，而且文章裡也沒出現 core and mantle rock之間關係，這就好比說，前提一：你吃飽了，選項Ａ：你在大便，這裡並沒有辦法證明前提一是假的，因為兩毫無關係，如果要達成削弱，你必須證明前提一變成：你沒吃飽，並且還要滿足你這個你沒吃飽的結論是要建立在大便大不大的出來的前提下，可是問題來了，難道你吃飽就一定能夠大便嗎？這兩者沒有直接相關聯，有人會便秘啊，有人會烙塞啊，所以你大不大便無法證明你沒吃飽，因此吃飽了ＶＳ.大便，並不具任何相關性，相反的，如果建立連結點也就是連貫性，跟吃有關的連貫性，因為吃了很多東西進肚子才能算是把你自己餵飽，因此這個連貫性必須是建立在吃進去東西之後，你的身體告訴你吃飽了，這樣才有具連慣性。所以回到吃飽了ＶＳ.大便，如果硬要把他們倆連接，我們來建立一個場景這個連接點就是：你的主食是大便。因為你在大便，大便是你的主食，因為主食還在製造，所以沒辦法執行吃的任務，因此沒吃飽（違背前提一），這樣才能達成削弱的目的。所以經過這麼棒的循環經濟模型的舉例之後（Ａ）錯在沒有連貫性。

(B) The mantle rock of the Earth has changed in composition since the formation of the Moon, while the mantle rock of the Moon has remained chemically inert.

這句話簡單來說就是在月亮存在的時候，地球石頭改變，然後月亮維持不變，意味著『Ｍ不等於Ｅ』這樣回去對應結論，

conclusion：the mantle rocks of the Moon and the Earth should be the same geochemically. 結論的重點是Ｍ＝Ｅ，所以這句話的出現證明結論是不真實的，結論句質疑成功，削弱成行。然後連貫性來說主詞都是mantle rock，所以合理，有達成連貫性。選（Ｂ）

補充：

(C) Much of the Earth‘s iron fell to the Earth‘s core long before the formation of the Moon, after which the Earth‘s mantle rock remained unchanged.假設他與其他前提，結論連貫的話，這個選項出現會形成『強化』，強化就是這句話證明文章的中的某一句話是『真的』，並在在做舉例或補充，這裡remained unchanged.及表示 iron fell to the Earth‘s core這件事情永遠不變，前提一永遠是對的，夠絕對的。

(D) Certain of the Earth‘s elements, such as platinum, gold, and iridium, followed iron to the Earth‘s core. 他說的是物質在地球裡的流向都到了核心去，跟前提一混到邊的只有Earth‘s iron fell to the Earth‘s core，但是followed，金，銀這些構成不相干內容，因為前提一的主幹在the Earth‘s collision之後月球被丟出來，獨立了，所以違反連慣性。

(E) The mantle rock of the Moon contains elements such as platinum, gold, and iridium.由結論去堆Ｍ＝Ｅ，所以Ｍ有的東西，可以從地球上找，假設（Ｅ）選項的這些金銀珠寶，地球上沒有的話他就達成削弱目的，可是文章內容中沒提到任何地球富含東西，因此連貫性上又出問題了。