ChaseDream

标题: 请教feifei-58 [打印本页]

作者: tavington 时间: 2005-8-3 21:22
标题: 请教feifei-58

58. Some people say that the scarcity of food is a function of the finite limits of the earth’s resources, coupled with a relentless rate of population growth. This analysis fails to recognize, however, that much of the world’s agricultural resources are used to feed livestock instead of people. In the United States, for example, almost one-half of the agricultural acreage is devoted to crops fed to livestock. A steer reduces twenty-one pounds of inexpensive grain to one pound of expensive meat. Thus, the scarcity of food is not merely a function of limited resources and population growth.

Which one of the following is an assumption that would allow the conclusion in the argument to be properly drawn?

A. eople prefer eating meat to eating grain.

B. Meat is twenty-one times more expensive than grain.

C. The limits of the earth’s agricultural resources are not finite.

D. More than one-half of the agricultural acreage in the United States is devoted to drops fed to humans.

E. Growing crops for human consumption on the acreage currently devoted to crops for livestock will yield more food for more people.

答案选e,题目不是问那个可以支持么？怎么变反对了？

（原文解释如下：

E is the best answer. 喂养牲畜消耗的粮食为人们创造更多的食物。（题目内容是：有观点认为食物缺乏是因为土地资源有限而人口数量却不断增多。但作者认为该观点忽视了农产品中有相当大一部分是用来喂家畜的。在美国几乎有一半土地的粮食是为了养家畜。1磅肉要用去21磅廉价的谷物。因此，食物缺乏不仅是因为土地资源有限而人口数量却不断增多。）根据题目要求，我们只须反驳养家畜对粮食紧缺造成的影响。选项A中即使人们爱吃肉只会引起更多的粮食消耗，不能反驳作者; B并不能充分改变人们的取向；C强词夺理；D重复事实。）

还望各位指教，小妹在这先谢谢了。。

作者: vendetta 时间: 2005-8-3 23:10

e支持了作者的推理，没有weaken作用。作者认为他人的推理仅涉及到人口的增长与资源的有限性问题，作者的推理谈到了家畜消耗资源这一问题，而e项对作者的推理起到了支持作用。

作者: tavington 时间: 2005-8-4 16:37

哦。谢谢哈

欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/)