[求助][讨论]gwd-29-q37

lawrence0707

Rabbits were introduced to Numa Island in the nineteenth century.  Overgrazing by the enormous population of rabbits now menaces the island’s agriculture.  The government proposes to reduce the population by using a virus that has caused devastating epidemics in rabbit populations elsewhere.  There is, however, a chance that the virus will infect the bilby, an endangered native marsupial.  The government’s plan, therefore, may serve the interests of agriculture but will clearly increase the threat to native wildlife.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

A.      There is less chance that the virus will infect domestic animals on Numa than that it will infect bilbies.

B.       There are no species of animals on the island that prey on the rabbits.

C.      Overgrazing by rabbits endangers many of the plants on which bilbies feed.

D.      The virus that the government proposes to use has been successfully used elsewhere to control populations of rabbits.

There is no alternative means of reducing the rabbit population that would involve no threat to the bilby.

答案选的是c, 但是结论是针对的是native wildlife而不是biby. 那不是无关了嘛?

silent7706

“There is, however, a chance that the virus will infect the bilby, an endangered native marsupial.” 这里又说Bilby也是native widlife。

ljc1202

还是不明白，请NN们帮忙解答下。马上就要考试了~~~

ding

jack00000

Rabbits were introduced to Numa
                Island in the nineteenth century.  Overgrazing by the

说兔子被引进到NI在这个时候，说一个O这个事情被大量的兔子的数量已经影响到

enormous population of rabbits now menaces the island’s agriculture.  The government

这个小P岛的农业。

proposes to reduce the population by using a virus that has caused devastating epidemics in

这个政府打算减少兔子数量通过一个病(什么病，能够导致在兔子里面到处都是的)

rabbit populations elsewhere.  There is, however, a chance that the virus will infect the bilby,

但是，有这样一个偶然性，这个病可能导致另一个东西（B）死。

an endangered native marsupial.  The government’s plan, therefore, may serve the interests

政府计划，增加农业收益
        但是
        显然的威胁了野生动物

of agriculture but will clearly increase the threat to native wildlife.

文章主题意思：说O这个事情怎么样了，影响了B。

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

问削弱

A.      There is less chance that the virus will infect domestic animals on Numa than that it

will infect bilbies.

A说这块有很小的偶然性，这个病被传染在别的动物比在B的，在这个地方。主体：说这个病

B.       There are no species of animals on the island that prey on the rabbits.

这块没有动物物种期待兔子。主体：说其他动物

C.      Overgrazing by rabbits endangers many of the plants on which bilbies feed.

这个O这个事情被兔子危机了许多植物，B这个东西吃的。主体：O这个事情

D.      The virus that the government proposes to use has been successfully used elsewhere

to control populations of rabbits. 主体：病

There is no alternative means of reducing the rabbit population that would involve no threat to the bilby.

jack00000

以下是引用lawrence0707在2008-11-13 21:17:00的发言：

答案选的是c, 但是结论是针对的是native wildlife而不是biby. 那不是无关了嘛?

你的问题时扣了词，没抓整体意思，仔细理解就明白了。

thing_12

http://forum.chasedream.com/dispbbs.asp?BoardID=24&replyID=2326616&id=248303&skin=0

答案A ,扣了wildlife.

goodmaneri

I think that the answer should be C since the conclusion of this argument is that

"The government’s plan, therefore, may serve the interests of agriculture but will clearly increase the threat to native wildlife ".

 However,in answer c,the virus will reduce the population of the rabbits. The decreasing popular of rabbits would have decrease the overgrazing that endangers many of the plants on which bilbies feed. Therefore, the virus might serve the interest of native wildlife,too. In this situation, the conclusion of this argument might be problematic.

This is my reason to support answer "C".

Can someone explain why A is better than C ? 

 

tiffany1102

UP

李鸣哲

我认为   结论是 serve 了农业的利益 C说endanger了那个物种吃的草  所以weaken了结论

fiona_hq

up