还没有登录哦！
[Critical Reasoning]
试题详情
题目：
Increased use of incineration is sometimes advocated as a safe way to dispose of chemical waste. But opponents of incineration point to the 40 incidents involving unexpected releases of dangerous chemical agents that were reported just last year at two existing incinerators commissioned to destroy a quantity of chemical waste material. Since designs for proposed new incinerators include no additional means of preventing such releases, leaks will only become more prevalent if use of incineration increases.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?
选项:
A、At the two incinerators at which leaks were reported, staff had had only cursory training on the proper procedures for incinerating chemical waste.
B、Other means of disposing of chemical waste, such as chemical neutralization processes, have not been proven safer than incineration.
C、The capacity of existing incinerators is sufficient to allow for increased incineration of chemical waste without any need for new incinerators.
D、The frequency of reports of unexpected releases of chemical agents at newly built incinerators is about the same as the frequency at older incinerators.
E、In only three of the reported incidents of unexpected chemical leaks did the releases extend outside the property on which the incinerators were located.
答案:
A
提问：
请王文静老师继续看一下我的问题，非常感谢
解答：
点赞0
阅读4872
提问：
请王文静老师继续看一下我的问题，非常感谢
解答：
点赞0
阅读4874
提问：
请王文静老师解释一下这道题，我选了D，把其他选项都排除了，谢谢！
解答：
点赞1
阅读4893
提问：
老师这题做的时候没读懂，A也读不懂，可能自己英语基础不太好，但是9号就考试了感觉补英语能力也来不及了。您可以给我讲讲这道题如果读不太懂的情况下有什么做题方法吗
解答：
点赞2
阅读5704
提问：
选了B，说没有其他方法比焚烧炉更安全，不就是说明焚烧炉是最安全的方法么，削弱了原文说的焚烧炉不安全观点
解答：
点赞0
阅读5496
提问：
老师，A为什么不算脑补？
解答：
点赞0
阅读5509
提问：
驳斥题。感觉A选项无关。误选D。
对于CR驳斥的题目，为什么有些正确的选项读出的是无关的感觉呢？是没有读懂句子还是其他原因？
望老师指点一下，谢谢~
解答：
点赞0
阅读5540
问个问题
注册太麻烦？点这里查看免费答疑吧！
博币不足
加"GMAT小百科"小智微信
直接送200
