求助一道题

fuzheng602

Any serious policy discussion about acceptable levels of risk in connection with explosions is not well served if the participants fail to use the word "explosion" and use the phrase "energetic disassembly" instead. In fact, the word "explosion" elicits desirable reactions, such as a heightened level of attention, whereas the substitute phrase dose not. Therefore, of the two terms, "explosion" is the one that should be used throughout discussions of this sort.
Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument above depends?
A In the kind of discussion at issue, the advantages of desirable reactions to the term "explosion" outweigh the drawbacks, if any, arising from undesirable reactions to that term.
B The phrase "energetic disassembly" has not so far been used as a substitue for the word "explosion" in the kind of discussion at issue.
C In any serious policy discussion , what is said by the participants is more important than how it is put into words.
D The only reason that people would have for using "ernergetic disassembly" in place of "explosion" is  to render impossible any serious policy discussion concerning explosions.
E The phrase "energetic disassembly" is not necessarily out of place in describing a controlled rather than an accidental.


谢谢那位牛人帮忙做个解答。

imstephanie

个人感觉是A。

sdcar2010

LS is right.  Necessary assumption. Use negation.

If you negate choice A, you have: In the kind of discussion at issue, the advantages of desirable reactions to the term "explosion" DO NOT outweigh the drawbacks, if any, arising from undesirable reactions to that term. If this is the case, then why should we use the word exposion??? The whole argument falls apart.

fuzheng602

答案是A 能否帮我解释分析一下。