Historian: Newton developed mathematical concepts and techniques that are fundamental to modern calc...

题目信息

Historian: Newton developed mathematical concepts and techniques that are fundamental to modern calculus. Leibniz developed closely analogous concepts and techniques. It has traditionally been thought that these discoveries were independent. Researchers have, however, recently discovered notes of Leibniz` that discuss one of Newton's books on mathematics. Several scholars have argued that since the book includes a presentation of Newton's calculus concepts and techniques, and since the notes were written before Leibniz` own development of calculus concepts and techniques, it is virtually certain that the traditional view is false. A more cautious conclusion than this is called for, however. Leibniz` notes are limited to early sections of Newton's book, sections that precede the ones in which Newton's calculus concepts and techniques are presented.

In the historian's reasoning, the two portions in blodface play which of the following roles?

A:The first provides evidence in support of the overall position that the historian defends; the second is evidence that has been used to support an opposing position

B:The first provides evidence in support of the overall position that the historian defends; the second is that position

C:The first provides evidence in support of an intermediate conclusion that is drawn to provide support for the overall position that the historian defends; the second provides evidence against that intermediate conclusion

D:The first is evidence that has been used to support a conclusion that the historian criticizes; the second is evidence offered in support of the historian`s own position

E:The first is evidence that has been used to support a conclusion that the historian criticizes; the second is further information that substantiates that evidence.

参考答案及共享解析

共享解析来源为网络权威资源、GMAT高分考生等；如有疑问，欢迎在评论区提问与讨论

正确答案： D:The first is evidence that has been used to support a conclusion that the historian criticizes; the second is evidence offered in support of the historian`s own position

传统观点认为牛顿和莱布尼茨对微积分发现是相互独立的，但最近学者发现莱布尼茨的笔记有关于牛顿写的数学书的内容。因为牛顿的书有微积分的内容，而且那份笔记写于莱布尼茨发现微积分之前。所以学者认为传统观点错误。然而作者认为需要一个更加严谨的结论，因为莱布尼茨的笔记对牛顿数学书的讨论局限在书前几章，而那前几章还没有涉及到微积分的内容。

作者的结论虽然是more cautious，看起来像是优化，但从后面的内容来看是对学者conclusion的weaken，削弱了学者的结论。

笔记