有的时候特别容易把无关的看成有关的，请帮我看如何界定选项和文章到底有没关系

bunnyfdu2015

可能是我还比较low吧，就是，有的题目要把正确答案往前推一下，用common sense联系一下，才和文章连得上
然后，有的题目，又是我自己想太多。。。
我做逻辑状态好的时候，有关没关一下看出来了，有的时候又自己在那里瞎想，这个怎么破？

In the past, most children who went sledding in the winter snow in Verland used wooden sleds with runners and steering bars.Ten years ago, smooth plastic sleds became popular; they go faster than wooden sleds but are harder to steer and slow.The concern that plastic sleds are more dangerous is clearly borne out by the fact that the number of children injured while sledding was much higher last winter than it was ten years ago.

Which of the following, if true in Verland, most seriously undermines the force of the evidence cited?

	A few children still use traditional wooden sleds.
	Very few children wear any kind of protective gear, such as helmets, while sledding.
	Plastic sleds can be used in a much wider variety of snow conditions than wooden sleds can.
	Most sledding injuries occur when a sled collides with a tree, a rock, or, another sled.
	Because the traditional wooden sled can carry more than one rider, an accident involving a wooden sled can result in several children being injured. 这个题目就比较能说明我的困惑，你们看是不是我想多了。。。 答案选C，AD是完全乱扯，然后我很奇怪的把BE留下了 我觉得B-很少有人穿什么保护装置才发生事故的，那我觉得是因为protection的关系，不是新滑板的原因导致出事的，那也可以削弱啊（我知道没提到新老滑板的对比） 所以我的问题是：削弱题中谈到两个事物的对比，说一个好，要削弱的话，是不是也要提到另一个，不然就是无关选项？ 我是逻辑小白，不好意思啊

bunnyfdu2015

我加一个问题：C至少提到了塑料滑板，说的是滑板的使用问题，可是就怎么削弱了呢