prep2-38

38.   (32291-!-item-!-188;#058&006866)

Offshore oil-drilling operations entail an unavoidable risk of an oil spill, but importing oil on tankers presently entails an even greater such risk per barrel of oil.  Therefore, if we are to reduce the risk of an oil spill without curtailing our use of oil, we must invest more in offshore operations and import less oil on tankers.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument above?

D------------A

(A) Tankers can easily be redesigned so that their use entails less risk of an oil spill.

(B) Oil spills caused by tankers have generally been more serious than those caused by offshore operations.

(D) Offshore operations usually damage the ocean floor, but tankers rarely cause such damage.

(E) Importing oil on tankers is currently less expensive than drilling for it offshore.

答案是Ａ，想想也对～

不过我想问下Ｄ为什么不可以呢～？offshore peration对海洋表面造成的污染那个不是比较严重么．这样就削弱了啊～

 不知道对不对阿，这篇argument primarily 谈的是：OIL SPILLS，

A正好扣题

D有些偏题了, The ocean floor.

想问一下，原文不是说importing oil on tankers presently entails an even greater such risk per barrel of oil.而A选项说Tankers can easily be redesigned so that their use entails less risk of an oil spill.这不正好和原文矛盾吗，削弱是应该削弱他们的关系，总不能直接把原文给否了吧。

我觉得这个题目我出问题应该是处在题目的理解上，大家能帮忙讲一下吗？谢谢啦

再把这个帖子顶起来，还有地方不明白呢！

同意你的观点.A直接否定原文,让人很费解.

不过A是唯一适合的答案了.其他答案都比A要糟糕. C,D,E都没有针对"risk",所以跑题. B直接支持结论. A为最佳选项

A 没有反对原文啊，  它只是对原文信息的补充和修改， 原文说TANKER 污染大是基于没有改装过的模型说的。

所谓反对原文是那些 丝毫没有技术含量地跟原文对着干， 且不提供进一步证据，

因为这么干 说服不了别人， 才不能算削弱， 才会引出 反对原文不成立 这个结论。