哇哦，请教各位大侠们 OG13-85题（原OG12-86题）感谢！！！！！！

cherryzxj

86. Keith: Compliance with new government regulations
requiring the installation of smoke alarms and
sprinkler systems in all theaters and arenas will cost
the entertainment industry $25 billion annually.
Consequently, jobs will be lost and profits diminished.
Therefore, these regulations will harm the country's
economy.
Laura: The $25 billion spent by some businesses will
be revenue for others. Jobs and profits will be gained
as well as lost.
Laura responds to Keith by
(A) demonstrating that Keith's conclusion is
based on evidence that is not relevant to the
issue at hand
(B) challenging the plausibility of the evidence that
serves as the basis for Keith's argument
(C) suggesting that Keith's argument overlooks a
mitigating consequence
(D) reinforcing Keith's conclusion by supplying a
complementary interpretation of the evidence
Keith cites
(E) agreeing with the main conclusion of Keith's
argument but construing that conclusion as
grounds for optimism rather than for pessimism

答案选C，我理解为什么C对，但我觉得D和E也没有错，OG上解释说，D和E的前半部分错在“Laura rejects rather than reinforces Keith's conclusion”，但我认为，Laura并没有否定Keith的结论，就想题目中说的：“Laura: The $25 billion spent by some businesses will be revenue for others. Jobs and profits will be gained as well as lost.” 这不就是在赞同K的基础上，再加以解释吗？希望各位NN们帮助啊，谢谢！~~~~~O(∩_∩)O~~

DUKB24

K：
Premise：Compliance with new government regulations requiring the installation of smoke alarms andsprinkler systems in all theaters and arenaswill cost the entertainmentindustry $25 billion annually
Sub Conclusion（Premises）： jobs will be lost andprofits diminished
Main Conclusion： these regulations will harmthe country's economy.


L：
Premise：The $25 billion spent bysome businesses will berevenue for others. Jobs and profits will be gained as well as lost.
Conclusion：this question is tricky for notgiving a clear statement. But it is not hard to identify a conclusion based on theanalysis.
Supposed L will agree withK. then their conclusion will be almost identical. If that is the case，what L use as a premise mayend up weakening this conclusion.
So，L must  disagree with K in order to make logic sense。