[求助]GWD-5-32 请教

Q32:

Which of the following most logically completes the argument?

Although the pesticide TDX has been widely used by fruit growers since the early 1960’s, a regulation in force since 1960 has prohibited sale of fruit on which any TDX residue can be detected.  That regulation is about to be replaced by one that allows sale of fruit on which trace amounts of TDX residue are detected.  In fact, however, the change will not allow more TDX on fruit than was allowed in the 1960’s, because ______.

1. pre-1970 techniques for detecting TDX residue could detect it only when it was present on fruit in more than the trace amounts allowed by the new regulations
   



2. many more people today than in the 1960’s habitually purchase and eat fruit without making an effort to clean residues off the fruit


3. people today do not individually consume any more pieces of fruit, on average, than did the people in the 1960’s


4. at least a small fraction of the fruit sold each year since the early 1960’s has had on it greater levels of TDX than the regulation allows
   



5. the presence of TDX on fruit in greater than trace amounts has not been shown to cause any harm even to children who eat large amounts of fruit

Answer: A

原文意思应是TDX如果超过某一剂量则有害

70年前的技术 只有在超过新规定剂量时 才侦测得到

所以70年前的规定只要侦测到就不行

请教一下这题的逻辑意思，为什么选A？ 没太看明白。

按理说， 新法规出台前， 只要检测到TDX residue， 就不能卖。现在新法规了，允许trace amount的也能卖了。应该是会有更多TDX的啊， 怎么会没有呢？

谢谢

以前，监测到有RESIDUE就不能卖，新规定允许有trace amounts 。（虽然说条件放宽了），但较松的规定却没有让更多的苹果通过监测。A说的是原来的技术其实单纯的RESIDUE是检查不出来的，只有到了TDX的量高于trace amounts ，才能检查成有RESIDUE。这样虽然条件放宽了，但技术水平使实际检查到的TDX的量是差不多的。所以说较松的规定却没有让更多的苹果通过监测。

原文说的是宽松的规定并未让苹果有更多的残留物,,答案a的解释是说在1970年前的检测水平低于新规定的要求(实际上就是说可以检测出的杀虫剂的残留物量会比规定允许的要高)

A：现在规定只能有trace amounts的残留，而以前只有当残留超过trace amounts的时候才能检测出来

B：无关比较；这个选项比较局有迷惑性；不能想当然认为消费者的习惯变化与规定制定有必然联系，制定者在制定规定时，可能会考虑消费者习惯，但这只是你的假设；大脑要空白

C：现在没有以前吃得多了，无关

D：至少一小部分，不能代表整体

E：如果将not去掉，还可以商量是不是考虑一下这个选项

我认为即使去掉not也不能选，因为题目只说了政府规定的问题，至于有毒无毒，是我们常识里跑出来的，除非再加一句，政府的规定是跟人民身体健康有关的。

我这种思路对不对？请指正..

我觉得很奇怪，为什么A是pre-1970?  题目没有说1970啊。