条件是一旦鹅被射杀的5%那么狩猎季节就结束，题目说的是降低射杀鹅的限制可以使其他物种上升，但是给的答案B说自从实施这项限制，狩猎季节结束的时间提早了

已经很多年了，难道所要表达的就是说鹅越来越少，没必要降低这个标准么？

Some species of Arctic北极的 birds are threatened by recent sharp increases in the population of snow geese鹅, which breed in the Arctic and are displacing birds of less vigorous健壮的 species.  Although snow geese are a popular quarry for hunters in the southern regions where they winter, the hunting season ends if and when hunting has reduced the population by five percent, according to official estimates.  Clearly, dropping this restriction would allow the other species to recover.

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

A.      Hunting limits for snow geese were imposed many years ago in response to a sharp decline in the population of snow geese.

B.      It has been many years since the restriction led to the hunting season for snow geese being closed earlier than the scheduled date.

C.      The number of snow geese taken by hunters each year has grown every year for several years.

D.      As their population has increased, snow geese have recolonized wintering grounds that they had not used for several seasons.

E.      In the snow goose’s winter habitats, the goose faces no significant natural predation.

题目论据是认为射杀受限，才只杀5%,所以现在鹅的数量有增无减，应该放宽限制。

那么要削弱这个论据，应该说鹅的数量增加是另有原因，而和射杀率无关，就算降低限制，鹅数量一样会增加，这样才对。

那么B选项恰好说明这种必要性，说出了现在狩猎受限的情况，还没到5%就结束了，也就证明了上面的论据。怎么会肖弱的，

B是削弱结论，而不是论据。没到5%就结束，说明鹅的数量会多，鹅的数量多，就会影响那种鸟的数

量，当然就削弱结论了。结论是说别的鸟的数量可以增加。

可是问题问的是Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the argument，

而不是conclusion.

这道题目我今天做错了。

其实我在想，是不是说因为hunting season总是提早结束，所以即使drop the restriction也不能让other species of birds增加呢？因为snow geese的数量不会因为增加hunting而减少。