GWD29 Q37

AgendaChen

Rabbits were introduced to Numa Island in the nineteenth century.  Overgrazing by the enormous population of rabbits now menaces the island’s agriculture.  The government proposes to reduce the population by using a virus that has caused devastating epidemics in rabbit populations elsewhere.  There is, however, a chance that the virus will infect the bilby, an endangered native marsupial.  The government’s plan, therefore, may serve the interests of agriculture but will clearly increase the threat to native wildlife.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

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

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

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

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

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

我用helr的方法，这题是一道因果推理，virus(plan) will deal with overgrazing but also infect the bilby →plan serve the interests of agriculture but will increase the threat to native wildlife
两种CQ模式，干扰和因果概括，考虑到逻辑链挺完整的，就往干扰因素上面靠拢
做题的时候纠结于CE，后来选了E，因为做的时候结论没读懂，原以为原文的结论是政府只关心agriculture而不关心wildlife
回头再看，现在觉得这题没有正确答案，C没有削弱前提，也就是无论C存不存在，virus总会对bibly造成影响；E当然也不对了
以上是我自己的看法。刷了好几遍OG，自己觉得这题真无聊，真正的考试绝对不会出现如此模糊的选项，OG的选项都是很直接的，除非你没看懂题目，要不绝对做的出来

求讨论！！！！！1