A major chemical spill occurred five years ago at Baker’s Beach, the world’s sole nesting ground for Merrick sea turtles, and prevented nearly all the eggs laid that year from hatching.Yet the number of adult female Merricks returning to lay their eggs at Baker’s Beach has actually increased somewhat since five years ago.Clearly, environmentalists’ prediction that the world’s Merrick population would decline as a result of the spill has proven unfounded. Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the argument offered in refutation of the environmentalists’ prediction?
A.The chemical spill five years ago occurred at a time when there were neither Merrick sea turtles nor Merrick sea turtle eggs on Baker’s Beach.
B.Female Merrick sea turtles begin returning to Baker’s Beach to lay their eggs when they are ten years old.
C.Under normal conditions, only a small proportion of hatchling female Merrick sea turtles survive in the ocean until adulthood and return to lay their eggs at Baker’s Beach.
D.Environmental pressures unrelated to the chemical spill have caused a significant decline in the population of one of the several species of sea birds that prey on Merrick sea turtle eggs.
E.！After the chemical spill, an environmental group rejected a proposal to increase the Merrick sea turtle population by transferring eggs from Baker’s Beach to nearby beaches that had not been affected by the spill.作者: MarsTOF 时间: 2011-6-16 21:22
同不会。。up。。作者: zeze100 时间: 2011-6-16 22:40
我的理解是这样 题目问的是那个削弱文章作者的观点 文章作者反对环境保护者乌龟数量会因为chemical spill下降，因为近5年回来下蛋的乌龟反而多了。 B是说乌龟要10年才能开始下蛋，即chemical spill的作用要5年后才能显现＝》环境保护者的观点是有道理的＝》作者是没道理的作者: mudiduange 时间: 2011-7-16 20:09
关注原文的逻辑，其实就是有问题的。 环境保护着：泄露的化学物质会导致蛋不能孵化 另一方观点：5年来，到海滩来产卵的乌龟数量增加了 因此，化学泄露没有影响。