OG30-187

2段： 举例说明一些公司将多余的存货倾倒遭到媒体的批评（在他们浪费的同时，有各种难民等待救济）。

3段：The managers of these companies are not deliberately wasteful; they are simply unaware of all their alternatives. 1976年PASS 了一个法，为捐赠的公司减税。

187. By asserting that manufacturers " are simply unaware", the author suggests which of the following?

A Manufacturers might donate inventory to charity rather than dump it if they knew about the provision in the federal tax code.

D The manufacturers of products disposed of by dumping are unawqre of the needs of those people who would find the products useful.

the answer is A.

我觉得应该是从前文推出D，怎么会是从下文找呢？

The managers of these companies are not deliberately

wasteful; they are simply unaware of all their alternatives

因为前面一直在说dump对公司的好处，for the managers, the most important thing is the benifits of their companies! thus, the side-product of dumping is "not deliberately wast". here, ";" is very important i think. it somewhat means "while".  in D, are unawqre of the needs of those people who would find the products useful.  没有意识到public的需求是不对的。因为原文说not deliberately，就是说dumping不是故意的，是因为为了公司的利益，他们没有别的办法，毕竟dumping 有很多好处

原文: they are simply unaware of all their alternatives

解该题对alternatives的理解是一个关键. 这里的alternatives指的是above-cost federal tax, 而不是the needs of those people who would find the products useful.

我觉得解释的还不够有力……

对于2楼的说法，不知道有人需要所以 dump，当然也可以说并非 deliberately wasteful - being wasteful 不是故意的，因为不知道有那么多人需要，不行吗？

而3楼的说法，只是说这是……而不是……，能不能给个具体的解释为什么呢？ 比如从文中给个具有说服力的句子。

谢谢了

而且，先说那么一大堆，然后再说1976年怎么怎么样，给人一种先后发生顺序的感觉。好象是针对这种情况（扔掉了很多可以利用的商品）政府1976年出台了这项税法，鼓励商家同时救济贫苦老百姓。根据这种很符合逻辑的解释，既然之前没有这想法规，就谈不上成为一种解决办法，所以又怎么能够成为一项 alternative 呢？

希望有更有说服力的解释，谢谢。