ChaseDream
搜索
返回列表 发新帖
00:00:00

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?

正确答案: A

更多相关帖子

524

帖子

15

好友

4712

积分

ChaseDream

注册时间
2003-03-17
精华
8
解析
查看: 2933|回复: 2
打印 上一主题 下一主题

询问一体PP的 CR

[复制链接]
跳转到指定楼层
楼主
发表于 2010-8-28 15:04:54 | 只看该作者 回帖奖励 |正序浏览 |阅读模式
Q3.
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?
(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.
(C) The impact of offshore operations on the environment can be controlled by careful management.
(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A 我选了E 求解
收藏收藏 收藏收藏
板凳
 楼主| 发表于 2010-8-28 16:28:05 | 只看该作者
非常谢谢楼上。
沙发
发表于 2010-8-28 15:39:52 | 只看该作者
题目在讲oil spill没说expensive的事情
您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 立即注册

手机版|ChaseDream|GMT+8, 2024-11-13 03:36
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号

ChaseDream 论坛

© 2003-2023 ChaseDream.com. All Rights Reserved.

返回顶部