一道费费逻辑求解！

deathgod18

58. Some people say that the scarcity of food is a function of the finite limits of the earth’s resources, coupled with a relentless rate of population growth. This analysis fails to recognize, however, that much of the world’s agricultural resources are used to feed livestock instead of people. In the United States, for example, almost one-half of the agricultural acreage is devoted to crops fed to livestock. A steer reduces twenty-one pounds of inexpensive grain to one pound of expensive meat. Thus, the scarcity of food is not merely a function of limited resources and population growth.

Which one of the following is an assumption that would allow the conclusion in the argument to be properly drawn?

A. People prefer eating meat to eating grain.

B. Meat is twenty-one times more expensive than grain.

C. The limits of the earth’s agricultural resources are not finite.

D. More than one-half of the agricultural acreage in the United States is devoted to drops fed

to humans.

E. Growing crops for human consumption on the acreage currently devoted to crops for

livestock will yield more food for more people.

E is the best answer. 喂养牲畜消耗的粮食为人们创造更多的食物。（题目内容是：有观点认为食物缺乏是因为土地资源有限而人口数量却不断增多。但作者认为该观点忽视了农产品中有相当大一部分是用来喂家畜的。在美国几乎有一半土地的粮食是为了养家畜。1磅肉要用去21磅廉价的谷物。因此，食物缺乏不仅是因为土地资源有限而人口数量却不断增多。）根据题目要求，我们只须反驳养家畜对粮食紧缺造成的影响。选项A中即使人们爱吃肉只会引起更多的粮食消耗，不能反驳作者; B并不能充分改变人们的取向；C强词夺理；D重复事实。

答案我不是很理解。问题问的assumpation应该是加强。为什么解析要反驳，在我看来E是削弱额。。？麻烦高手讲解下。多谢！

愤怒的小河马

你为什么觉得E是削弱呢？

题目结论说的是，食物的稀缺不仅仅是因为农业资源的限制和人类的生长导致的。前提是，人类把很多农业资源分配给了牲畜，而牲畜只可以给人类提供较少的食物。
那么E里面说，如果这些给牲畜的农业资源给了人类，可以给人类提供更多的食物。（本来同样面积的一块地可以产出21磅的粮食，但是给了牲畜，这个牲畜只能给人类提供1磅的肉。如果不给牲畜喂这些粮食而是直接给了人类，那么人类就可以多得很多粮食）所以说，食物的稀缺有一部分是因为人类把农业资源给了牲畜，这样加强了结论。