关于helr逻辑笔记中的因果推理

冰晶

有个挺关键的问题，真的让我太头痛了。helr老师说，因果推理中，不能用他因削弱。可是，我遇到一个题，
Early in the twentieth century, Lake Konfa became very polluted.  Recently fish populations have recovered as release of industrial pollutants has declined and the lake’s waters have become cleaner.  Fears are now being voiced that the planned construction of an oil pipeline across the lake’s bottom might revive pollution and cause the fish population to decline again.  However, a technology for preventing leaks is being installed.  Therefore, provided this technology is effective, the fears are groundless.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?
(A) The pipeline’s construction will disturb sediments at the bottom of the lake, dispersing into the water toxic pollutants that have settled there.
(B) Changes in land use and drainage patterns around the lake mean that the lake’s waters are increasingly likely to be affected by agricultural runoff.
(C) The leak-preventing technology has been in use for several years without any pipeline in which it is installed developing serious leaks.
(D) A major leak of oil from the pipeline would harm not only the lake’s fish but also populations of other aquatic animals and plants.
(E) Since the beginning of the twentieth century, non-native species of fish have been introduced into the lake and now make up a considerable proportion of its overall fish population.
helr老师将其归类为统计推理，我觉得因果推理也完全说得通。前提-防漏油技术靠谱   结论-没必要担心污染问题 而正确选项A就是举了个他因来告诉我们没必要担心污染问题这个结论是错的，从而削弱了结论。这么来看，他因削弱有什么问题吗？完全成立啊。当然我觉得把A的削弱归为因果联系削弱，也是成立的，毕竟因果联系这个词真的好模糊啊。。。
希望有NN帮我解答一下困惑！我明天就要考试了，这么重要的问题都还没搞定，心里还是非常忐忑的。
谢谢各位。

Rumy-M

我觉得是你抓的因抓错了，这里的因是construction pipe 果不会有污染，然后construction 带来其他负面的果

HoganTong

我跟你感觉一样，我也是把这题归为因果了，但是因果推理应该是可以用他因来反驳的吧？

Rieu

文章中说该技术会防止泄漏，但防止泄漏只是河流不会被进一步污染的前提条件之一。削弱题旨在找出在不泄漏的情形下河流可能被污染的可能性。A即指明了这种可能性之一。