100.
Brochure: Help conserve our city’s water supply. By converting the landscaping in your yard to a water-conserving landscape, you can greatly reduce your outdoor water use. A water-conserving landscape is natural and attractive, and it also saves you money.
Criticism: For most people with yards, the savings from converting to a water-conserving landscape cannot justify the expense of new landscaping, since typically the conversion would save less than twenty dollars on a homeowner’s yearly water bills.
Which of the following, if true, provides the best basis for a rebuttal of the criticism?
A. Even homeowners whose yards do not have water-conserving landscapes can conserve water by installing water-saving devices in their homes.
B. A conventional landscape generally requires a much greater expenditure on fertilizer and herbicide than does a water-conserving landscape.
C. A significant proportion of the residents of the city live in buildings that do not have yards.
D. It costs no more to put in water-conserving landscaping than it does to put in conventional landscaping.
E. Some homeowners use more water to maintain their yards than they use for all other purposes combined.作者: cherryserena 时间: 2011-8-30 20:43
Criticism holds that the savings from converting to a water-conserving landscape from a conventional landscape is very small, the difference of bill is only 20 dollars per year.
While D) is comparing the cost difference between setting up a water-conserving landscape and setting up a conventional landscape. It has nothing to do with the criticism.
Because the criticism emphasize on the result of conversion. Anything happened prior to the conversion is out of scope.作者: leslielu 时间: 2011-9-4 08:02
