求大牛解答GWD-29-Q37 逻辑题

huanglianjing

Rabbits were introducedto Numa Island
in the nineteenth century.  Overgrazing by the enormous population ofrabbits now menaces the island’s agriculture. The government proposes to reduce the population by using a virus thathas caused devastating epidemics in rabbit populations elsewhere.  There is, however, a chance that the viruswill infect the bilby, an endangered native marsupial.  The government’s plan, therefore, may servethe interests of agriculture but will clearly increase the threat to nativewildlife.Which of the following,if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

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

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

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

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

E.      There is no alternative means of reducing the rabbitpopulation that would involve no threat to the bilby.

我选的E,答案是C.我觉得C的解释Okay，但是E错在哪里？求大牛解答，在线等答案，谢谢各位

jiangqz

你好,
我不是大牛,是个新手,这道题挺有感觉,所以试着说说我的看法.

1.E为什么错:
首先这个是绝对说法,no alternative means太绝对了, 这种绝对选项一定不能选; 其次, 若是在看题时一下没意识到这种绝对的说法, 可以从方法上来入手, 文章中只提到解决问题的一个方法, 并没有信息表明没有alternative means, 所以E的说法就很错了;


2.C怎么分析出的:
文章的主要逻辑是这样的:
      问题: overgrazing rabitts-->reducing plants, 措施:virus-->bilby endanger. 那么矛盾就在于怎样说明这种方法能达到目的的同时不影响bilby, 或者这种其他策略也会导致bilby endanger.
此时,容易判断C对

希望能帮到你!新年祝好~

huanglianjing

谢谢！懂了！

百嗑全输

没太懂。。。