求助FF-58

echonie123

58. Some people say that the scarcity of food is a function of the finite limits of the earth’s resources, coupled with a relentless rate of population growth. This analysis fails to recognize, however, that much of the world’s agricultural resources are used to feed livestock instead of people. In the United States, for example, almost one-half of the agricultural acreage is devoted to crops fed to livestock. A steer reduces twenty-one pounds of inexpensive grain to one pound of expensive meat. Thus, the scarcity of food is not merely a function of limited resources and population growth.

Which one of the following is an assumption that would allow the conclusion in the argument to be properly drawn?

A.    eople prefer eating meat to eating grain.
B.    Meat is twenty-one times more expensive than grain.
C.    The limits of the earth’s agricultural resources are not finite.
D.    More than one-half of the agricultural acreage in the United States is devoted to drops fed to humans.
E.    Growing crops for human consumption on the acreage currently devoted to crops for livestock will yield more food for more people.

E is the best answer. 喂养牲畜消耗的粮食为人们创造更多的食物。（题目内容是：有观点认为食物缺乏是因为土地资源有限而人口数量却不断增多。但作者认为该观点忽视了农产品中有相当大一部分是用来喂家畜的。在美国几乎有一半土地的粮食是为了养家畜。1磅肉要用去21磅廉价的谷物。因此，食物缺乏不仅是因为土地资源有限而人口数量却不断增多。）根据题目要求，我们只须反驳养家畜对粮食紧缺造成的影响。选项A中即使人们爱吃肉只会引起更多的粮食消耗，不能反驳作者; B并不能充分改变人们的取向；C强词夺理；D重复事实。
这道题明明是一道加强题啊，但如果选E的话其实是在削弱结论才对不是吗？
题目的结论是食物短缺并不仅由于土地稀缺和人口增长（还可能由于喂养牲畜）。如果选E的话，就是说喂养牲畜可以带来更多的食物，从而导致食物不短缺了，那就跟结论相反起到削弱作用了诶。感觉FF的解释有点问题。
请NN们指教~

echonie123

自己顶一个。。。