TT-GWD4-Q11 急~求取非削弱和无关判断的区别

medusa0901

TT-GWD4-Q11
Because ethylene dibromide, a chemical usedto fumigate grain, was blamed for the high rate of nerve damage suffered bypeople who work in grain-processing plants, many such plants switched to otherchemical fumigants two years ago. Sincethen, however, the percentage of workers at these plants who were newlydiagnosed with nerve damage has not dropped significantly. Therefore, either ethylene dibromide waswrongly blamed or else the new chemicals also cause nerve damage.

Which of the following is an assumption onwhich the argument depends?

1. If the new chemicals cause nerve damage, the nerve damage caused would be different from any nerve damage that ethylene dibromide may cause.
   
   
2. There are no chemical fumigants that are completely safe for workers in grain-processing plants.
   
   
3. If ethylene dibromide causes nerve damage, it does not take two years or longer for that damage to become detectable.
   
   
4. Workers at grain-processing plants typically continue to work there even after being diagnosed with nerve damage.
   
   
5. Workers at grain-processing plants that still use ethylene dibromide continue to have a high rate of nerve damage.
   

答案C已经明白取非削弱，但是纠结B
结论：CD被错误的指责，或者NEW chemical 导致的神经损伤，他因造成，问假设
B. 取非ALL chemical fumigants completely safe for workers-->加强结论CD？

请问B是无关选项，还是能用取非削弱判断？~~~~~~~

sdcar2010

When negating B), you have:
There are SOME fumigants that are completely safe for workers in grain-processing plants.

If so, the conclusion still holds since it is possible that the plants use those unsafe fumigants.