GWD-2-10

rock19840717

Environmentalist:  The use of snowmobiles in the vast park north of Milville create sun acceptable levels of air pollution and should be banned.

Milville business spokesperson:  Snowmobiling brings many out-of-towners to Milville in winter months, to the great financial benefit of many local residents.  So, economics dictate that we put up with the pollution.

Environmentalist: I disagree:  A great many cross-country skiers are now kept from visiting Milville by the noise and pollution that snowmobiles generate.

Environmentalist responds to the business spokesperson by doing which of the following?

A.        Challenging an assumption that certain desirable outcome can derive from only one set of circumstances

B.        Challenging an assumption that certain desirable outcome is outweighed by negative aspects associated with producing that outcome

C.        Maintaining that the benefit that the spokesperson desires could be achieved in greater degree by a different means

D.      Claiming that the spokesperson is deliberately misrepresenting the environmentalist’s position in order to be better able to attack it

E.       Denying that an effect that the spokesperson presents as having benefited a certain group of people actually benefited those people

答案是E，排除法做的，但E的意思我没看明白，什么叫做否认了发言人所说的已经受益的一群人确实是受益，我没太明白这话什么意思，请教大家啦

strawdog

E翻译出来就是：发言人表达会给一部分人受益，但是环保学者否认能够真正给这些人带来收益。

因为环保专家指出由于污染和噪音，很多滑雪者已经不到Milville来滑雪了，所以不会给当地经济带来好处（而发言人认为可以活跃当地经济）

rock19840717

啊！！！懂了，我老联想到人上面去，其实不是特指那些人，而是形象的说明了一个问题，我脑子果然不行啊