Critical Reasoning
试题详情
题目：
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?
选项:
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.
答案:
C
提问：
这题A选项为什么不对？
我个人认为: 这题一直在谈病毒会感染珍稀动物，所以这个计划要失败。要反驳这个观点，最起码也得谈到病毒或者感染，否则就应该是无关选项。
像C选项，哪怕食物变多了，我觉得如果全都感染病毒死了，那也没用啊，还是不成功。所以应该不能weaken才对？
评分:
0
浏览:
4243
