og202-E的选项似乎有点问题

202.Gortland has long been narrowly self-sufficient in both grain and meat. However, as per capita income in Gortland has risen toward the world average, per capita consumption of meat has also risen toward the world average, and it takes several pounds of grain to produce one pound of meat. Therefore, since per capita income continues to rise, whereas domestic grain production will not increase, Gortland will soon have to import either grain or meat or both.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

(A) The total acreage devoted to grain production in Gortland will not decrease substantially.

(B) The population of Gortland has remained relatively constant during the country’s years of growing prosperity.

(C) The per capita consumption of meat in Gortland is roughly the same across all income levels.

(D) In Gortland, neither meat nor grain is subject to government price controls.

(E) People in Gortland who increase their consumption of meat will not radically decrease their consumption of grain

文中说，收入水平上升了，吃肉的也多了。而一磅肉要花N磅谷物，所以如果收入上涨的话，尽管谷物产量不下降，G国还要进口谷物或者肉或者两者都要

E:G国对肉类的消费的增加不会导致谷物消费的下降

很想weaken+not 的assumption

E去掉not，G国对肉类的消费的增加会导致谷物消费的下降，这里能削弱结论吗？我感觉并不能，

因为1.结论说的是收入的增加导致的进口，当然其中有一条收入的增加－－－消费肉－－－肉需求量增加－－－进口肉或谷物或两者。但是当中没有牵涉到谷物啊。为何能削弱呢？

2.【G国对肉类的消费的增加不会导致谷物消费的下降】如果它成立的话，是否以为着谷物不需要进口，只要进口肉就好了。那为何结论中还有三者取其一呢，也就是说肉/谷物/两者都进口，这不是意味着三者都有可能吗？如果这个假设成立的话，不就以为着只需进口肉就好了呢？

get rid of the "not" in E and the argument will not be valid.

i.e., if E becomes: increase meat consumption, decrease grain consumption.

the argument becomes: then we don't have to import meat or grain

So it works! E is right.

Try to think again.