In 1992 outlaw fishing boats began illegally harvesting lobsters from the territorial waters of the country of Belukia. Soon after, the annual tonnage of lobster legally harvested in Belukian waters began declining; in 1996, despite there being no reduction in the level of legal lobster fishing activity, the local catch was 9,000 tons below pre-1992 levels. It is therefore highly likely that the outlaw fishing boats harvested about 9,000 tons of lobster illegally that year.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

A  The illegal lobster harvesting was not so expensive that the population of catchable lobsters in Belukia’s territorial waters had sharply declined by 1996

B  The average annual lobster catch, in tons, of an outlaw fishing boat is has increased steadily since 1992.

C  Outlaw fishing boats do not , as a group, harvest more lobsters than do licensed lobster-fishing boats.

D  The annual legal lobster harvest in Belukia in 1996 was not significantly less than 9,000 tons.

E  A significant proportion of Belukia’s operators of licensed lobster-fishing boats were out of business between 1992 and 1996

answer: A

why?

我先把题目翻译一下吧：

在1992，非法渔船开始从Belukia国家的领水中非法捕获龙虾。很快，Belukia水域的合法龙虾年收成开始下降；在1996年，尽管没有减少任何合法的龙虾捕获行动，当地的龙虾捕获也比1992年前的水平少了9000吨，因此，那一年非法渔船很可能非法捕获了大约9000吨的龙虾。

下列选项中的哪一项是本文所依赖的一个假设？

A 非法龙虾捕获并没有严重到使得Belukia水域中能够捕获的龙虾数量在1996年前出现严重的下降
B 非法渔船的每年的平均龙虾捕获，以吨计算，自从1992年起开始稳步上升
C 非法渔船作为总体来说并不比那些有执照的龙虾捕猎船捕获更多的龙虾
D 1996年Belukia的年度合法龙虾捕获并不比9000吨少
E Belukia的合法龙虾渔船的运营者的很大比例在1992年到1996年间停业了

解释是这样的：

本文考察假设。文章首先指出有非法渔船和合法渔船两种传捕龙虾。然后从92年开始合法龙虾捕获量下降。96年合法捕的龙虾比92年前少了9000吨，最终的结论是96年的非法龙虾捕获数量大约9000吨。可以看出：如果作者最后的结论是正确则表明92年到96年龙虾的总捕获量基本上是不变的，所以表示龙虾总数量上没有很明显的下降，这样A是一个很好的假设。

A的确为正确选项

希望这个解释能帮到你：）

我也是，刚做完这题，为什么答案是A啊？

我连A答案的意思还没有弄明白呢，...so expensive that the population of XXX ...had sharply declined by 1996。忽然说价钱贵，跟population declined 有啥关系啊？糊涂了！

望大NN打救啊！！

that 后面才是重点，不管是什么原因，只要鱼少了，肯定就是对conclusion的weaken了

所以这道题是not weaken的题……

96年比92少了9000ton的lobsters，结论说outlaw fishing boats harvested about 9,000 tons of lobster illegally that year，也就是说这9000ton都是由于illegal harvest少的。假设默认illegal的行为是导致lobster减少的唯一原因，换句话说就是排除了一切他因。正确答案可以说：illegal harvest是唯一原因，也可以说没有其他原因导致结论的发生（减少）

The illegal lobster harvesting was not so expensive that the population of catchable lobsters in Belukia’s territorial waters had sharply declined by 1996 -------96年lobster的可捕获量没有减少，即排除一种他因，如果去掉not, 起weaken作用

hope this helps

the population of catchable lobsters had declined by 96, 那么是不是就是说总的抓到的数量急剧减少。但是前半句是说illegal lobsters harvesting is not so expensive，那不就是说illegal 不贵，然后很多人会选择那个方式。 但貌似被我这么一理解好像就变矛盾了。。。

请求帮助~~~  谢谢~~！！！！！！

解释的太好了！！