标题: 求大神讲解！ [打印本页] 作者: PrWazInce 时间: 2018-7-26 18:24 标题: 求大神讲解！ OG2018 CR622
Increased use of incineration is sometimes advocated as a safe way to dispose of chemical waste. But opponents of incineration point to the 40 incidents involving unexpected releases of dangerous chemical agents that were reported just last year at two existing incinerators commissioned to destroy a quantity of chemical waste material. Since designs for proposed new incinerators include no additional means of preventing such releases, leaks will only become more prevalent if use of incineration increases.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?
A
At the two incinerators at which leaks were reported, staff had had only cursory training on the proper procedures for incinerating chemical waste.
B
Other means of disposing of chemical waste, such as chemical neutralization processes, have not been proven safer than incineration.
C
The capacity of existing incinerators is sufficient to allow for increased incineration of chemical waste without any need for new incinerators.
D
The frequency of reports of unexpected releases of chemical agents at newly built incinerators is about the same as the frequency at older incinerators.
E
In only three of the reported incidents of unexpected chemical leaks did the releases extend outside the property on which the incinerators were located.
答案是A
conclusion：leaks will only become more prevalent if use of incineration increases.
A我能理解 排放危险物不是设备的问题 而在于人为操作
我纠结C 现有的设备能满足日益增长的焚烧需求 就不需要新的设备了 这样不也是对conclusion进行了削弱？（虽然焚烧需求增加了，但排放危险物并没有变得普遍，因为只限于涉事的两台设备）