费费58 不懂

58. Some people say that the scarcity（缺乏，不足） of food is a function of the finite（有限的） limits of the earth’s resources, coupled with a relentless（残酷的；无情的） rate of population growth. This analysis fails to recognize, however, that much of the world’s agricultural resources are used to feed livestock（家畜；牲畜） instead of people. In the United States, for example, almost one-half of the agricultural acreage is devoted to crops fed to livestock. A steer（小公牛） reduces twenty-one pounds of inexpensive grain to one pound of expensive meat. Thus, the scarcity of food is not merely a function of limited resources and population growth.

Which one of the following is an assumption that would allow the conclusion in the argument to be properly drawn?

A.        People prefer eating meat to eating grain.

B.        Meat is twenty-one times more expensive than grain.

C.        The limits of the earth’s agricultural resources are not finite.

D.       More than one-half of the agricultural acreage in the United States is devoted to drops fed to humans.

E.        Growing crops for human consumption on the acreage currently devoted to crops for livestock will yield more food for more people.

费费解释： 

E is the best answer. 喂养牲畜消耗的粮食为人们创造更多的食物。（题目内容是：有观点认为食物缺乏是因为土地资源有限而人口数量却不断增多。但作者认为该观点忽视了农产品中有相当大一部分是用来喂家畜的。在美国几乎有一半土地的粮食是为了养家畜。1磅肉要用去21磅廉价的谷物。因此，食物缺乏不仅是因为土地资源有限而人口数量却不断增多。）根据题目要求，我们只须反驳养家畜对粮食紧缺造成的影响。选项A中即使人们爱吃肉只会引起更多的粮食消耗，不能反驳作者; B并不能充分改变人们的取向；C强词夺理；D重复事实。

 问：

ABCD都明白不对。不明白这题的conclusion到底是什么，如何和E这个assumption联系起来？

请教NN们，谢谢！

E选项抄错了吧，加个NOT才是假设，不然是削弱结论

yield 做动词有两个意思～～～

first, 产生，出产（某物）

second,让步放弃～～·

显然用第一个意思啊， YIELD...FOR...这种搭配还能 译成 放弃A给B不成？

不用加not 就是假设呀。。。说用于饲养牲畜的土地如果用来给人类种粮食会生产更多的粮食，养活更多的人，这不是说这些土地也是造成粮食短缺的原因么。加Not就削弱了呀。

解释是不是错了 是给出假设而不应该是反驳吧