Brochure: Help conserve our city’s water supply. By converting the landscaping in your yard to a water-conserving landscape, you can greatly reduce your outdoor water use. A water-conserving landscape is natural and attractive, and it also saves you money. Criticism: For most people with yards, the savings from converting to a water-conserving landscape cannot justify the expense of new landscaping, since typically the conversion would save less than twenty dollars on a homeowner’s yearly water bills. Which of the following, if true, provides the best basis for a rebuttal of the criticism? A. Even homeowners whose yards do not have water-conserving landscapes can conserve water by installing water-saving devices in their homes. (无关) B. A conventional landscape generally requires a much greater expenditure on fertilizer and herbicide than does a water-conserving landscape. C. A significant proportion of the residents of the city live in buildings that do not have yards. (无关) D. It costs no more to put in water-conserving landscaping than it does to put in conventional landscaping. E. Some homeowners use more water to maintain their yards than they use for all other purposes combined. (无关)
看过前辈的讨论贴, 同 意rebuttal of criticism 是对 是对criticism的削弱 ,也同意 B是很好的削弱选项 ,可是还是搞不清楚D为什么不是削弱。 criticism 的观点是使用 的观点是使用省水的landscaping省下的钱不足以cover the expense of new landscaping,如果newlandscapping 花费并不比conditional的高,而且新的landscapping还可以省钱,不同样削弱了criticism的观点吗?欢迎指教
[此贴子已经被作者于2007-8-6 13:57:09编辑过] |