旧题新发，跪求大牛，GWD5-28（tn 24版的）

ding22113344

Environmentalist: The use of snowmobiles in the vast park north of Milville creates 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


答案说E，我觉得是A
我从国外找来的别人的回答

fitzgerald23 wrote:I thought this one was pretty clearly A. The argument boils down to this:

Businessman: Snowmobile riders come to the town and bring us money

Environmentalist: Cross country skiers are now avoiding our town

The rebuttal is no longer attacking the environmental impact but the economic one. The environmentalist is telling the business person that another group of people would provide economic benefit to the town if there was no pollution.

A. Correct. This is what he is attacking. The business person believes that people are only coming to the town because of the snowmobiling while the other points out that there is another group that would take their place and provide the same economic benefit.

B. Incorrect. He never talks about the negatives outweighing the positives in his rebuttal.

C. Incorrect. This is something I could see being the answer but he never really states that the skiers would bring greater impact economically than the snowmobile. He just points out that there are others who could bring money into the town if they visited.

D. Incorrect. Clearly this does not happen.

E. Incorrect. He is never challenging the benefit. He never says that the town does not benefit from the snowmobilers nor does he say the snowmobilers did not benefit from being allowed to use the town.

keithyang926

Here, environmentalist directly attacks the premise held by the spokesperson, but seems that you need to know beforehand that 'out-of-towners' refers to the same group of people as does 'cross-country skiers' .

ding22113344

那群人是同一群人也没事啊，benefit的人不同就行了啊

keithyang926

Suppose this question is completely and correctly structured, and the answer is E, one way to look at option E is  to construe the 'certain group of people' as 'out-of-towners' or 'cross-country skiers '.

ding22113344

但是，spokenman说的benefit是benefit那个镇里的人啊，，

keithyang926

Well, perhaps, the 'benefit' in option E is not equivalent to 'financial benefit' mentioned in the passage. Entertainment for skiers could also be a benefit to those people. I chose E because each of the other choices doesn't make sense to me. However, E has some space I can work with.

ding22113344

谢谢