有点怀疑：霏霏78

Despite improvements in treatment for asthma, the death rate from this disease has doubled during the past decade from its previous rate. Two possible explanations for this increase have been offered. First, the recording of deaths due to asthma has become more widespread and accurate in the past decade than it had been previously. Second, there has been an increase in urban pollution. However, since the rate of deaths due to asthma has increased dramatically even in cities with long-standing, comprehensive medical records and with little or no urban pollution, one must instead conclude that the cause of increased deaths is the use of bronchial inhalers by asthma sufferers to relieve their symptoms.

78. Each of the following, if true, provides support to the argument EXCEPT:

(A) Urban populations have doubled in the past decade.

(B) Records of asthma deaths are as accurate for the past twenty years as for the past ten years.

(C) Evidence suggests that inhalers make the lungs more sensitive to irritation by airborne pollen.

(D) By temporarily relieving the symptoms of asthma, inhalers encourage sufferers to avoid more beneficial measures.

(E) Ten years ago bronchial inhalers were not available as an asthma treatment.

答案a,没有问题，但是我看了一些帖子，说a是削弱，我不是很明白，我觉得是无关选项，文中并没有明确说明人口的多少和污染的严重之间的关系，所以人口增加不一定就是污染严重了，是吗？我选a, 是觉得它没有支持的作用，无关痛痒，nn门如何认为？谢谢指教

Despite improvements in treatment for asthma, the death rate from this disease has doubled during the past decade from its previous rate.(Conclusion)    Two possible explanations for this increase have been offered. First, the recording of deaths due to asthma has become more widespread and accurate in the past decade than it had been previously(Reason1). Second, there has been an increase in urban pollution(Reason2). However, since the rate of deaths due to asthma has increased dramatically even in cities with long-standing, comprehensive medical records and with little or no urban pollution(~Reason2), one must instead conclude that the cause of increased deaths is the use of bronchial inhalers by asthma sufferers to relieve their symptoms(Reason3).

原文逻辑认为reason1和reason2导致了conclusion; 后面否了reason2, 认为是reason3导致的；　A选项说了reason4, 削弱了原文说是reason3导致的。不知意下如何？？

a有明显的问题，原文是要找一个对呼吸器的支持，而a中支持的是污染致使死亡率过高，明显不是说一个东西，更别说是support原文的最后一句了

是啊！这一题我也不理解~明白了XDJM们能不能给我解释一下？题干前半部分说是因为原因1和2引起的高死亡率，后半部分说在原因1,2都不满足的地方，死亡率还是大大增加了，所以说asthma的高死亡率是因为原因3。

(A)到底是怎么样weaken原因3的啊？a说的是人口增长。题干中从头到尾也没有提过这个问题，

1。如果说它是他因的话。文中没有说人口增长也是原因之一，如果选他作他因是不是下了个假设，人口增长所以污染变严重，所以不是原因3而是原因2？如果是这样的话，题干中推出原因3的是在有些地方没有污染的前提下，这里反前提可以吗？

2。如果说人口增长不是代表污染严重，只是他自己是原因4，所以证明不是原因3。可是文中如果没有提过人口增长也有可能造成高的死亡率，我们没有足够的证据把它当作是原因4啊？

想不通啊！请各位帮帮忙~~感谢感谢啊！！

这个题确实有点狡猾！

前面一直说死亡率什么什么，而结论是 one must instead conclude that the cause of increased deaths is the use of bronchial inhalers by asthma sufferers to relieve their symptoms. 其中的the cause of increased deaths 说的是死亡数增加的原因。陷阱阿！（不知道ETS是不是也这么狡猾？？）

而A选项说，可能是人口增加导致了死亡数增加，所以，是他因削弱！

不知道我的解释是否清晰，希望有所帮助吧。

NN们怎么解此题？