GWD 17-11求助

Some species of Arctic birds are threatened by recent sharp increases in the population of snow geese, which breed in the Arctic and are displacing birds of less vigorous species.  Although snow geese are a popular quarry for hunters in the southern regions where they winter, the hunting season ends if and when hunting has reduced the population by five percent, according to official estimates.  Clearly, dropping this restriction would allow the other species to recover.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the argument?

A.   Hunting limits for snow geese were imposed many years ago in response to a sharp decline in the population of snow geese.

B.    It has been many years since the restriction led to the hunting season for snow geese being closed earlier than the scheduled date.

C.   The number of snow geese taken by hunters each year has grown every year for several years.

D.   As their population has increased, snow geese have recolonized wintering grounds that they had not used for several seasons.

E.    In the snow goose’s winter habitats, the goose faces no significant natural predation.

答案是B,以前也讨论过，但是对于这个思路也没有定论，我看了还是不明白，有人能帮忙看看吗？谢谢。

  说实话，我喜欢D

同问,想不通B什么意思?!!

事情或许是这样的：

1。文章认为geese多了是bird少了原因

2。又认为存在狩猎限制是geese多了的原因

3。b指出，其实这个狩猎限制其实很多年没有被打破过了（狩猎量都未超过5%），所以，现在即使打破了限制，狩猎量也不一定会超过5%，故不一定会减少geese，增加bird

请指教

upup

我的理解正好相反，B指出狩猎总是提前结束已经好几年了，隐含的原因是提前达到5％的狩猎限量（ the hunting season ends if and when hunting has reduced the population by five percent），更深层次的原因是雪鹅多了，支持了原文观点。

ETS太阴险了

既考了逻辑又考了语法

弄了陷阱让大家跳

My vote is D, rather than B. The conclusion is, if the restriction, the number of snow geese will come down. But if there are more than one habitats (colonies), even the restriction removed, the number of the geese would, possibally, not come down. -- undermine the argument.

Choice B strengthens the conclusion. The drop of the restriction leads to dramatic reduce in the snow geese.