请教一道真题, 答案存在争议

Cassandra

In parts of the Caribbean, the manatee, an endangered marine mammal, has long been hunted for its meat.  Having noted the manatee hunters’ expert knowledge of manatees’ habits, local conservationists are encouraging the hunters to stop hunting and instead to take tourists on boat rides to see manatees.  Tourist interest is high, so the plan has promise of achieving the twin goals of giving the former hunters a good income and helping ensure the manatees’ survival.

Which of the following, if true, raises the most serious doubt about the plan’s chance of success?

A.     Many tourists who visit these parts of the Caribbean are uninterested in manatees and would not be willing to pay what the former manatee hunters would have to charge for boat rides to see manatees.

B.     Recovery of the species would enable some hunting to continue without putting the manatees’ survival in jeopardy again.

C.     In areas where manatees have traditionally been hunted for food, local people could easily replace the manatee meat in their diets with other foods obtained from the sea.

D.     There would not be enough former manatee hunters to act as guides for all the tourists who want to see manatees.

E.      To maintain their current income, manatee hunters who switched to guiding tourists would have to use far larger boats and make many more trips into the manatees’ fragile habitat than they currently do.

答案是A/E, 我觉得A似乎更好一点, 文中虽然说了interest is high, 但是A说了看manatee的interest不高, 所以不是和文章冲突, 削弱了结论; E也有支持者, 但是我觉得文章没有建立任何habitat和ensure the manatees’ survival.的关系, 大家觉得如何?

v22

我豁出去了，让俺这个逻辑差劲的说说：我觉得A好点。一看选项A，就觉得有点是答案，再看E，说hunters用更大的船引导旅客，无论有没有影响到m，起码他们都有收入，都可以maintain their current income，那么就不削弱结论了。

但是A呢，因为旅客不愿意花费，那么hunters就没收入了，这样hunter为了生存很可能又去捕获m了，所以削弱了结论呀。

不知道这样说怎样？

v22

哪里的题目？/

howardwang

理应是A

GMATCRACKER1983

个人认为Ａ好．本题属于措施不可行性的削弱体型，削弱方法有２个一，措施不能达到预期效果，二，虽然预期的效果达到了可是又有其它不好的影响．

A.     Many tourists who visit these parts of the LACE>CaribbeanLACE> are uninterested in manatees and would not be willing to pay what the former manatee hunters would have to charge for boat rides to see manatees.

属于第一种．

minsf

首先, MANＹ VISITORS 没有兴趣 和 MANY　ＶＩＳＩＴＯＲＳ 有 兴趣 不冲突

可是这里没有提到 A　　ＬＡＲＧＥ PERCENTAGE VISITORS 没有兴趣 .

GMAT中　相对和绝对区分很重要

.其次根本目的在于保护动物. 如果大船破坏 FRAGILE HABITAT, the plan's purpose is defeated.

选拔E

likui

支持选E

A不对，原题中已经说了Tourist interest is high，而A在doubt原题的前提，这是行不通的。

E一方面说，hunter添置larger boats增加了开支；另一方面，游客频繁的进出破坏了原本就fragile的栖息地；

plan的主旨也正如E所doubt的，在于两点，plan可以增加收入；plan可以保护栖息地。

howardwang

A之所以正确，有如下理由：

（1）Tourist interest is high，但是如果许多旅游者不愿付钱，那么至少可以削弱原文结论的一部分，giving the former hunters a good income；没有好的收入，manatee hunters还会去打猎，则也可削弱另一部分，helping ensure the manatees’ survival.

E之所以不正确，有如下理由：

（1）       原文说，the manatee, an endangered marine mammal, has long been hunted for its meat. 也就是说，可能hunt是marine mammal endangered的主要原因，否则，政府就不会试图禁止hunt。也就是说，与fragile habitat无关。更何况，去大一点多一点的船参观，未必能够影响生态环境；即使影响了环境，原文也没说就会影响marine mammal。

（2）       更何况，没有给HUNTER好的薪水。再加上没有helping ensure the manatees’ survival。

所以，E不对。

ESeraph

我觉得A是紧扣题目的，而E有些远

lawyer_1

注意结论说的是income,不是profit。所以E说的cost便无关。A为答案。旅游者不愿付钱，就不存在income，所以weaken结论。