大全-Ⅱ-14

大全-Ⅱ-14.
                Some analysts maintain that an embargo贸易禁令，禁运 by country Litora on the export of a strategic metal to country Zenda, if imposed, would drive up the price of the metal in Zenda at least tenfold. They note that few other countries export the metal and that, with an embargo, Zenda might have to depend on as-yet-unexploited domestic sources of the metal.

Which of the following, if true, constitutes the most serious objection to the analysis above?

(A) Litora’s economy depends heavily on foreign currency earned by the export of the strategic metal to other countries.

(B) There are foreign-policy steps that Zenda could take to appease（平息，安抚） Litora and avoid being subjected to an embargo on the metal.

(C) Geologists believe that additional deposits of the metal could possibly be found within the territory of Litora.

(D) Only a small proportion of Zenda’s import expenditures is devoted to the import of the metal from Litora.（E）

(E) In case of an embargo, Zenda could buy the metal indirectly from Litora on the world market at a less than one-third increase in cost.

答案是e,我选b

选的时候犹豫了一下，最后还是选了b

可以理解e

为什么不能选b呢？是不是不能从原因上否定（就是说，原因可以不发生），只能切断因果，或者给出相关信息来削弱呢？

谢谢指教：）

avoid being subjected to，问题是不是出在avoid上了？因为being subjected to是客观事实，无法避免了。

还有就是题目上是要选the most serious objection

我觉得可能是这个原因:

...if imposed, would drive up the price of the metal in Zenda at least tenfold.  说价格要上升10倍

UP!

WHY B is not right?

文章说：禁运，价格上10倍

B说怎么避免禁运。

E说Z国有其它方法，即使有禁运，也有办法避免价格大幅上涨。只张1/3。

是不是因为B contradict 原文信息了?

原文在分析假如实施禁运,Z国家会受到怎样的影响

而B却说Z国可以想办法不受禁运的影响.跟原文的背景好像不一样了

One-third ---tenfold, 削弱。

B实在想不出为什么不对?