The country of Baurisia has, until now, been self-sufficient in both grain and meat. However, with growing prosperity in Baurisia has come a steadily increasing per capita consumption of meat, and it takes several pounds of grain to produce one pound of meat. Therefore, since per capita income in Baurisia is almost certain to rise further but increases in domestic grain production are highly unlikely, Baurisia is soon likely to become an importer of grain.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?
A. When people increase their consumption of meat, they also tend to increase their consumption of grain. B. The per capita consumption of meat in Baurisia is roughly the same across all income levels. C. Per capita consumption of meat has not increased substantially in recent years in those countries from which Baurisia is likely to import meat. D. It is more economical for Baurisians to import meat than grain. E. During Baurisia's years of growing prosperity, the country's population has remained relatively stable.
这么比较的 A meat和grain同时需求增长 ---- 同时进口meat和grain B 将meat和income level联系起来 ---- 暗示进口meat（没有明确的提到import meat） C 输出国的meat consumption没有增加 ---- 暗示进口meat(likely to import meat) D 进口meat比gain更经济 ---- 明确进口meat E 人口保持平稳 ---- 暗示进口meat和grain(因为grain可以产出meat，所以随便进口哪个或者两个都行)
题干的重点在于increasing consumption of meat，而meat又与grain相关，本地的grain产
能不足，然后结论import gain。问weaken。即满足什么样的条件，才能降低grain的进口。 A meat和grain同时需求增长 B 将meat和income level联系起来 C 输出国的meat consumption没有增加 -- 相对来说不如D来的效果强 D 进口meat比gain更经济 E 人口保持平稳 比较下来就是D了。 (第一次讨论逻辑的问题，回答不到要点上的话莫怪。)
