[請益] TPO 11 MINERALS AND PLANTS

看板TOEFL_iBT (TOEFL_iBT托福)作者 (tom510558)時間14年前 (2011/09/06 23:52), 編輯推噓3(3017)
留言20則, 4人參與, 最新討論串1/2 (看更多)
Paragraph 6: Only recently have investigators considered using these plants to clean up soil and waste sites that have been contaminated by toxic levels of heavy metals – an environmentally friendly approach known as phytoremediation. This scenario begins with the planting of hyper accumulating species in the target area, such as an abandoned mine or an irrigation pond contaminated by runoff. Toxic minerals would first be absorbed by roots but later relocated to the stem and leaves. A harvest of the shoots would remove the toxic compounds off site to be burned or composted to recover the metal for industrial uses. After several years of cultivation and harvest, the site would be restored at a cost much lower than the price of excavation and reburial, the standard practice for remediation of contaminated soils. For examples, in field trials, the plant alpine pennycress removed zinc and cadmium from soils near a zinc smelter, and Indian mustard, native to Pakistan and India, has been effective in reducing levels of selenium salts by 50 percent in contaminated soils. 11. It can be inferred from Paragraph6 that compared with standard practices for remediation of contaminated soils, phytoremediation 1.does not allow for the use of the removed minerals for industrial purposes. 2.can be faster to implement 3.is equally friendly to the environment 4.is less suitable for soils that need to be used within a short period of time. 答案是四, 想請問大家為什麼是四= = 他不是說"compare with standard practices for remediation" 可是文章沒有說 standard practices for remefiation 比較適合說@@ 請大家解答摟 !!!謝謝~ -- ※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 123.194.204.209

09/07 00:12, , 1F
第九行,說需要花好幾年,所以傳統方法比較快但較貴
09/07 00:12, 1F

09/07 01:10, , 2F
第四個選項是針對需要在短時間內被使用的土地
09/07 01:10, 2F

09/07 01:10, , 3F
文章中的方法需要較長的時間
09/07 01:10, 3F

09/07 01:13, , 4F
after several years of cultivation.....
09/07 01:13, 4F

09/07 09:56, , 5F
可是第四個選項不是比較級? less sutiable
09/07 09:56, 5F

09/07 09:57, , 6F
但文章沒有提到說 standard practices for re!!$%^
09/07 09:57, 6F

09/07 09:58, , 7F
花的時間比較少QQ
09/07 09:58, 7F

09/07 10:00, , 8F
我的意思是 "相較於"不適合 這點判定不出來...?
09/07 10:00, 8F

09/07 10:01, , 9F
可不可以請兩位再解答QQ 我想我閱讀有危險了XD"
09/07 10:01, 9F

09/07 10:01, , 10F
謝謝你們!!!
09/07 10:01, 10F

09/07 12:23, , 11F
其實你看後面,他提到excavation, reburial這種處理方式
09/07 12:23, 11F

09/07 12:23, , 12F
都是很快就可以進行完成的,所以雖然他沒有明確點出,但還
09/07 12:23, 12F

09/07 12:24, , 13F
是可以推論出四。此外,用刪去法的話,第一個直接是錯的,
09/07 12:24, 13F

09/07 12:24, , 14F
與內文不符,第二個關於實行時的速度,完全沒提到,故刪去
09/07 12:24, 14F

09/07 12:26, , 15F
,第三個文中只有說這個方式比較eco friendly,傳統方式
09/07 12:26, 15F

09/07 12:27, , 16F
沒說。而第四個,要"花數年"才能,當然是不適合用在短期就
09/07 12:27, 16F

09/07 12:27, , 17F
要利用的土地上。
09/07 12:27, 17F

09/08 01:14, , 18F
樓上 超謝謝妳!!! 我覺得我可能思緒還不夠敏捷
09/08 01:14, 18F

09/08 01:14, , 19F
也謝謝其他人!!! 是說今天寫十二回 第一篇 慣用手錯
09/08 01:14, 19F

09/08 01:15, , 20F
爆多,我真的是剩1X天的人嗎QQ 只能硬上了口矣
09/08 01:15, 20F
文章代碼(AID): #1EPa6xPK (TOEFL_iBT)
討論串 (同標題文章)
文章代碼(AID): #1EPa6xPK (TOEFL_iBT)