请问一道逻辑题

bni

For years the beautiful Renaissance buildings in Palitito have been damaged by exhaust from the many tour buses that come to the city. There has been little parking space, so most buses have idled at the curb during each stop on their tour, and idling produces as much exhaust as driving. The city has now provided parking that accommodates a third of the tour buses, so damage to Palitito's buildings from the buses' exhaust will diminish significantly.
Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the argument?

A、The exhaust from Palitito's few automobiles is not a significant threat to Palitito's buildings.
B、Palitito's Renaissance buildings are not threatened by pollution other than engine exhaust.
C、Tour buses typically spend less than one-quarter of the time they are in Palitito transporting passengers from one site to another.
D、More tourists come to Palitito by tour bus than by any other single means of transportation.
E、Some of the tour buses that are unable to find parking drive around Palitito while their passengers are visiting a site.


请问B不算排除他因吗？

汽车尾气是破坏建筑物的唯一原因，现在增加停车位之后，汽车尾气就会大大减少，受破坏程度就减少了，请指出我这个过程的错误，谢谢!

yaya杨

个人觉得如果没有C，B是可以选的。但是B没有给出量化的比较， idling produces as much exhaust as driving.+provided parking =the buses' exhaust will diminish significantly. 题目给我们的信息是 diminish signigicantly，B只能说明Bus exhaust会减少，但是无法支持diminish signigicantly。
粗陋见解，欢迎探讨。

HoganTong

题目问的是为什么“让bus不idle而去park就能减少污染”，B在讨论的问题是“就算让bus都park了是不是还有别的污染源”，B讨论的事情跟原题目没有关系。就算有别的污染源，也不否认park能降低污染。我park后降低污染了，别的污染源再把污染水平拉回去，那也不能否认park能降低污染。所以B说的是个无关事项。