Rabbits were introduced to Numa Island in the nineteenth century. Overgrazing by the enormous population of rabbits now menaces the island’s agriculture. The government proposes to reduce the population by using a virus that has caused devastating epidemics in rabbit populations elsewhere. There is, however, a chance that the virus will infect the bilby, an endangered native marsupial. The government’s plan, therefore, may serve the interests of agriculture but will clearly increase the threat to native wildlife.（weaken“对argriculture有益，对wildl威胁”为什么是C——C不是support了吗？）
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?
A. There is less chance that the virus will infect domestic animals on Numa than that it will infect bilbies.
B. There are no species of animals on the island that prey on the rabbits.
C. Overgrazing by rabbits endangers many of the plants on which bilbies feed.
D. The virus that the government proposes to use has been successfully used elsewhere to control populations of rabbits.
E. There is no alternative means of reducing the rabbit population that would involve no threat to the bilby.
The government’s plan, therefore, may serve the interests of agriculture but will clearly increase the threat to native wildlife.
这个Argument，分两部分，前一部分，"may serve the interests of agriculture" 作者写的是May... , 我觉得可以不要理会，反正是可能，反过来除非证明是不可能，要不成立的可能性很大。这题我感觉主要还是集中精力chanllenge 后半段，“will clearly increase the threat to native wildlife”. 这意见很绝对，只要能证伪，或削弱，这题目的就实现了。所以就在选项中直接找能削弱这一部分的好了。
