能不能帮我看看这道逻辑

CloverJackier

As one who has always believed that truth is our nation’s surest weapon in the propaganda war against our foes, I am distressed by reports of “disinformation” campaigns by American intelligence agents in Western Europe. In a disinformation campaign, untruths are disseminated through gullible local journalists in order to damage the interests of our enemies and protect our own. Those who defend this practice say that lying is necessary to counter Soviet disinformation campaigns aimed at damaging America’s political interests. These apologists contend that one must fight fire with fire. I would point out to the apologists that the fire department finds water more effective.



11.The author’s main point is that
(A) although disinformation campaigns may be effective, they are unacceptable on ethical grounds
(B) America’s moral standing in the world depends on its adherence to the truth
(C) the temporary political gains produced by disinformation campaigns generally give way to long-term losses
(D) Soviet disinformation campaigns have done little to damage America’s standing in Europe
(E) disinformation campaigns do not effectively serve the political interests of the United States

答案说选E  
我不太懂这句的意思Those who defend this practice say that lying is necessary to counter Soviet disinformation campaigns aimed at damaging America
’s political interests.

sagamba

作者的主要观点是在最后，认为 the fire departments finds water more effective, 比 fire with fire 更加effective，E项即对所反对的practice取非，认为这种disinformation campaign并不够有效，支持disinformation campaign的人认为“苏维埃的disinformation损害了美国的政治利益，为了对抗他们的campaign，我们也必须采用disinformation campaign”，即“fire with fire”，而作者认为“fire with water”更有效，换句话说，disinformation campaign并不能有效地保护美国的政治利益。

eeheaven

答案是哪个啊？答案是C吗？

sagamba

C选项的话，infer too far away, 作者认为 fire with fire可能并不effective,也就是说可能并不能达到预期结果（可能比预期结果低，可能gains为零，也可能gains为负，即产生了损失），但是作者并没有明确指出达不到的程度，因此就没有必要进一步infer。