■△▲※☆★★向NN求助!![prep1-9]○●◎◆□■▲谢!!!!

9.Scientists are discussing ways to remove excess carbon dioxide from the atmosphere by increasing the amount that is absorbed by plant life.  One plan to accomplish this is to establish giant floating seaweed farms in the oceans.  When the seaweed plants die, they will be disposed of by being burned for fuel.

Which of the following, if true, would indicate the most serious weakness in the plan above?

(A) Some areas of ocean in the Southern Hemisphere do not contain sufficient nutrients to support large seaweed farms.

(B) When a seaweed plant is burned, it releases an amount of carbon dioxide comparable to the amount it has absorbed in its lifetime.

(C) Even if seaweed farms prove effective, some people will be reluctant to switch to this new fuel.

(D) Each year about seven billion tons of carbon dioxide are released into the atmosphere but only about five billion tons are absorbed by plant life.

(E) Seaweed farms would make more money by farming seaweed to sell as nutritional supplements than by farming seaweed to sell as fuel.

答案:B

我也觉得B确实是最佳答案,可我不明白的是C为什么不对, C可以算做是断桥型的削弱啊?!

谢谢!!

可是,我理解的C的意思大概是说:即使seaweed农场的这个计划确实可行,但仍有些人不愿意采用seaweed这种东西.

不知道这么理解是否正确,但总之,我仍然觉得C直接削弱的文章的结论(断桥型削弱)??

为什么C不对呢??

UP

UP

waiting...

从逻辑上，不采纳并不意味着会削弱，从某种意义上讲，C本身并没有很好地把断桥补全。

而B选项从逻辑内部证明整个方案存在弱点，从而削弱了。

那可以说C虽然是削弱,但没有B那么强烈和完美,是么??

谢谢charismale!!

(B) When a seaweed plant is burned, it releases an amount of carbon dioxide comparable to the amount it has absorbed in its lifetime.

(C) Even if seaweed farms prove effective, some people will be reluctant to switch to this new fuel.

我觉得C可以判断为"无关".做多了会对这种类似选项的无关有关把握得好些.

仔细分析的话,人们愿不愿意用这种新燃料又能怎么样呢?用的话,会释放CO2.恩,那释放了又怎么样呢? 于是B(When a seaweed plant is burned, it releases an amount of carbon dioxide comparable to the amount it has absorbed in its lifetime.)这个问题就是一个关键问题了.

如果不用的话,又怎么样呢? 不好说了.可能集中燃烧掉,也可能埋掉BLABLA.

所以,C不选. B正确.