feifei-121

Observatory director: Some say that funding the megatelescope will benefit only the astronomers who will work with it. This dangerous point of view, applied to the work of Maxwell, Newton, or Einstein, would have stified thier research and deprived the world of beneficial applications, such as the development of radio, that followed from that research.
If the statements above are put forward as an argument in favor of development of metatelescope, which one of the following is the strongest criticism of that argument?
A) It appears to the authority of experts who cannot have known all the isssues involved in construction of the megatelescope.
B)It does not identify those opposed to development of the megatelescope.
C)It launches a personal attack on opponents of the megatelescope by accusing them of having a dangerous point of vew.
D)It does not disinguish between the economic and the intellectual senses of benefit.
E)It does not show that the proposed megatelescope research is worthy of comparison with that of eminent scientists in its potential for application

选错了，发现题目没怎么看懂，可否把题目的大概意思说说？谢谢！

是否大概意思是望远镜的筹资不仅仅对科学家有利，对普通人也有利，比如之后发明的录音机？

原文：一些人认为funding the megatelescope 只对天文学家有益，这种危险的观点若用于M，N，E的工作，将已阻止他们的研究，并使世界得不到他们研究成果的应用，如RADIO。

问题：实际是原文的推理错误。

答案：E。原文用大科学家的例子证明funding the megatelescope 也一样会使世界收益。它的前提是 the megatelescope 研究也和大科学家一样有可比性，即能使世界收益

some 的观点是不是隐含了funding the megatelescope仅对天文学家有用，所以不应该funding.

要不然下一句怎么会提到“这种观点应用到大科学家身上会抑制他们的研究并使全世界不能受益。”如果没有"不应该funding"这样的结论，怎么会有也抑制了科学家本身的研究呢？

欢迎拍砖