请教LSAT中一种逻辑的问法

Which one of the following, if true, most calls into question the XXX’argument?

我理解成削弱，结果答案总是做错，搞不清楚到底是加强还是削弱XXX的观点。

For example:

The gray squirrel, introduced into local woodlands ten years ago, threatens the indigenous population of an endangered owl species, because the squirrels’ habitual stripping of tree bark destroys the trees in which the owls nest. Some local officials have advocated setting out poison for the gray squirrels. The officials argue that this measure, while eliminating the squirrels, would pose no threat to the owl population, since the poison would be placed in containers accessible only to squirrels and other rodents.

Which one of the following, if true, most calls into question the officials’ argument?

(A) One of the species whose members are likely to eat the poison is the red squirrel, a species on which owls do not prey.

(B) The owls whose nesting sites are currently being destroyed by the gray squirrels feed primarily on rodents.

(C) No indigenous population of any other bind species apart from the endangered owls is threatened by the gray squirrels.

(D) The owls that tare threatened build their nests in the tops of trees, but the gray squirrels strip away back from the trunks.

(E) The officials’ plan entails adding the poison to food sources that are usually eaten by rodents but not by other animals.

削弱

谢谢你的回答，这道题是削弱的话，应该怎么去削弱；the officials’ argument 是this measure, while eliminating the squirrels, would pose no threat to the owl population, since the poison would be placed in containers accessible only to squirrels and other rodents。削弱要么非因同果，要么同因异果。可是这道题怎么也得不出答案b,请高手指教。

措施目的型削弱，能证明措施无效或副作用巨大，就是削弱了。本题目的是保护owl, 可是措施的结果虽然消灭了grey squirrel, 可是将owl的食物Rodents也都消灭了，没法儿活了！

太高深，没明白意思。