GWD3-Q17:B Brochure: Help conserve our city’s water supply. By converting the landscaping in your yard toa water-conserving landscape, you can greatly reduce your outdoor water use. A water-conserving landscape is natural andattractive, and it also saves you money. Criticism: For most people with yards, the savings fromconverting to a water-conserving landscape cannot justify the expense of newlandscaping, since typically the conversion would save less than twenty dollarson a homeowner’s yearly water bills. Which of thefollowing, if true, provides the best basis for a rebuttal（反例） of thecriticism? 就是削弱criticism，C说得是water-conserving landscape不省钱，削弱就是说他省钱即可。 A.Even homeowners whose yards do nothave water-conserving landscapes can conserve water by installing water-savingdevices in their homes.支持 B.A conventional landscape generallyrequires a much greater expenditure on fertilizer and herbicide than does awater-conserving landscape. C.A significant proportion of theresidents of the city live in buildings that do not have yards.无关 D.It costs no more to put inwater-conserving landscaping than it does to put in conventional landscaping. 支持 E.! Somehomeowners use more water to maintain their yards than they use for all otherpurposes combined.无关
以下是某牛解释：（与上面相反）
大家不用争论啦，偶尽早已经找到了最经典的证据，OG30题（关于那个军火购买协议中以'historical costing"来定价的问题），几乎一摸一样，是ETS的标准表达方法，我们记住就好了，我们的误解可能是因为受中国英语的理解，印象中OF只能是那个意思。 Which of the following statements, if true, is the best basis for a criticism of historical costing as an economically sound pricing method for military contracts? 比较一下这个题 Which of the following, if true, provides the best basis for a rebuttal of the criticism? 可不是咋的？！典型的削弱题型！！ OG还是要好好读啊，包括它的提问方式。