再问GWD3-17

看了讨论，还是不明白

GWD3-Q17:

Brochure:  Help conserve our city’s water supply.  By converting the landscaping in your yard to a water-conserving landscape, you can greatly reduce your outdoor water use.  A water-conserving landscape is natural and attractive, and it also saves you money.

Criticism:  For most people with yards, the savings from converting to a water-conserving landscape cannot justify the expense of new landscaping, since typically the conversion would save less than twenty dollars on a homeowner’s yearly water bills.

Which of the following, if true, provides the best basis for a rebuttal of the criticism?

1. Even homeowners whose yards do not have water-conserving landscapes can conserve water by installing water-saving devices in their homes.
2. A conventional landscape generally requires a much greater expenditure on fertilizer and herbicide than does a water-conserving landscape.
3. A significant proportion of the residents of the city live in buildings that do not have yards.
4. It costs no more to put in water-conserving landscaping than it does to put in conventional landscaping.
5. Some homeowners use more water to maintain their yards than they use for all other purposes combined.

看了讨论，还是不明白

题目里criticism的论点认为从conversion中省的水钱每年只有少于20块，这样的saving不能弥补新园子的花费，言下之意就是新园子比老园子花费大，因为如果两个花费相当或新园子比老园子更省钱，那就不能说cannot justify the expense of new landscaping

选项里B and D都说两个花费的比较，我之所以认为D更好是因为D说新园子的花费不比老园子多，即或相等或少，正是weaken criticism结论的，而B说在肥料和除草剂的花费上新园子比老园子省，这只是诸多花费的一方面，不是整体，所以我认为D比B好

请指教，多谢

谢谢回复，明白你的意思是B old>new, D new<=old

但我注意到的是B只是说expenditure on fertilizer and herbicide，仅是一方面的花费，不知总花费如何，而D to put in water-conserving landscaping than it does to put in conventional landscaping, 这个put in正表明了总花费，所以D好

总花费差不多，还有必要换吗! D不是和Criticism说的一回事吗！

总结一下，我应该是在两点上思路有问题
 

1。小册子上说以节水为目标，所以应该convert, 后面的反对意见则侧重于expense方面，而问题问如何削弱后面，所以答案应该针对expense方面，因为如果综合brochure and criticism的论点，从节水的角度即使新旧花费一样也有必要换, 这20块可能是n吨水的钱，正象小册子上说的to help conserve our city’s water supply也应该convert
 

2。对justify的理解，我认为说cannot justify the expense of new landscaping，一定是new expense>old expense, 所以说相等是削弱，不过换个角度讲cannot justify the expense of new landscaping也可以是在说话人认为20块实在太少，而两个花费又相等的情况下生的结论，这种情况下，只有new expense<old expense才是削弱

不知道分析得是否正确，请NN指正。。虽然搜索到了前人的帖子，但是好像还是没有讨论D到底是怎么回事，下面是我的分析：

1.        首先，题目的方向：the best basis for a rebuttal of the criticism…是要削弱criticism

2.        Brochure主要是讨论节水：converting into the water-conserving landscaping，这样做能够balabala……，而且这种landscape可以节水，从而达到省钱的目的。

3.        Criticism的主要思想是讨论expense…从expenditure的角度去批驳小册子：强调原因是每年水节约下来的钱大概只有$20，说这些节约下来的钱不足以补偿“converting（转换成本）”的钱。

4.        削弱criticism最佳方式是从“花费”的角度，因为其主要考虑的问题是花费而不是节水。

5.        下面说一下本题提干中谈到的几种花费：

a)        O：浇水的钱

b)        N：浇水的钱，转换的钱

6.        先看选项D，在新的landscaping上的花费并不比旧的上多。依然还是在对比上述的a) 、b)两种花费：既然在Criticism中都已经说了：“不足以补偿”，那就是说“还是旧的比较省”！ 

Criticism说O＜N，选项D说O≥N，直接对人家去非，这不是削弱，是赤裸裸反驳。

7.        再看下选项B，O花在化肥等上的钱MUCH GREATER THAN  N花在这方面的钱，他因在expenditure方面进行削弱è答案B。