再问GWD3-Q17

Drakedirect

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]

Drakedirect

该题的答案，多数人倾向B....

Drakedirect

waiting for remarks, thank you!

rockytundra

以下是引用Drakedirect在2007-8-6 13:55:00的发言：

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

In the criticism, it talks about "savings from
converting to a water-conserving landscape ", while in choice D, it talks about "put in water-conserving
landscaping than it does to put in conventional landscaping."

Even if to put in water-conserving landscaping costs less than to put in conventional landscaping, it doesn't means that the cost of converting a conventional landscaping to a water-conserving landscaping is low, hence, it can not justify that the saved money from water bills after the conversion can cover the conversion cost. Therefore, it can not undermine the criticism.

Drakedirect

Got you rockytundra, yes,you are right 'put in' not equal to 'converting'
Thank you so much!

zxh912

个人以为，题目是要求对criticism 进行削弱，criticism 说从water-conserving landscape省下的水钱还不如进行new landscape的花费多，（不合算）， 要削弱就是water-conserving landscape省下的水钱比进行new landscape的花费多。B正好符合这一思路。D偷换了比较对象，将两种规划的成本相比，虽然也能削弱，但不如A直接。

 

zxh912

嗯，5楼说的很有道理，以前真没想到，谢！

Drakedirect

mm说的应该是4楼吧？hehe, anyway, thank you for your reply!

阿土莎莎

elaine1031

up