Prep07一道争议题，望各位大牛赐教。

andy2086

题目来源：prep2007-CR1-22

In the late 1980s, the population of sea otters inthe North Pacific began to decline. There are two plausible explanations for the decline:  predation, possibly by killer whales, ordisease.  Of these two, disease is themore likely, since a concurrent sharp decline in populations of seals and sealions is believed to have been caused by disease, and diseases that infectthese creatures are likely to be able to infect sea otters also.

Which of thefollowing, if true, most seriously weakens the reasoning?

(A) Killer whales in the North Pacific usuallyprey on seals and sea lions but will, when this food source is scarce, seek outother prey.

(B) There is no indication that the sea otterpopulation at any North Pacific location declined in the 1980s because ofsubstantial numbers of sea otters migrating to other locations.

(C) Along the Pacific coast of North America in the 1980s, sea otters were absent from many locationswhere they had been relatively common in former times.

(D) Following the decline in the population of thesea otters, there was an increase in the population of sea urchins, which aresea otters' main food source.

(E) The North Pacific populations of seals and sealions cover a wider geographic area than does the population of sea otters.

答案给出为A。

我的问题是：题目问的是[size=13.333333015441895px]weakens the reasoning，而原文的推理显然在于后半部分，而根据即属于Helr推理类型分类，这应该是属于类比推理。而类比推理的CQ特征是要找两个类比案例的不同点。
选项A确实可以说明不是[size=13.333333015441895px]disease导致[size=13.333333015441895px]sea otters减少，但是该选项无法对原文的推理构成削弱啊，因为原文是类比推理。
所以我怀疑这个题目本身有问题的，是违背了Helr所提到的逻辑推理原理的。

希望各位发表建议。

小蘑菇开始打怪

这个题目你看一下其实是果因。

前提：otter数量锐减（结果）
结果：认为是disease的问题（原因）

推理模式：果因

选项A就是他因排除的CQ。因为原文里面就说了有第二种可能的原因嘛，但是对于这种可能性并没有进行解释，选项A就是刚好解释这种原因是有可能的，从而就削弱了原文中对于原因二的解释。
选项A是说，当killer whales本来捕食的seal和sea lion减少时，会选择其他物种来捕食。

GILBERT-TONG

顶二楼观点，这个题典型果因推理，更惬意的事题目把CQ1中的他因也直接给出了，那么直接把题目的他因加强一下，就削弱了这个结论

求共同讨论helr方法的G友，有意加QQ742373873