The simple facts are these: the number of people killed each year by bears is about the same as the number of people killed by lightning of golf courses. And the number of people killed by lightning on golf courses each year is about the same as the number of people electrocuted by electric blenders. All the horrible myths and gruesome stories aside, therefore a grizzly bear is in fact about as dangerous as an electric blender or a game of golf.

56. Which one of the following, if true, would most effectively undermine the author’s argument?

(A) Although the number of people killed by lightning on golf courses each year is very small, the total number of lightning fatalities is many times greater.

(B) Electric blenders are among the safest housed hold appliances; were the author to compare fatalities from electrical appliances in general, she would get a much higher figure.

(C) Most people would rather take their chances with benders and golf games than with grizzly bears.

(D) Bears in general---including black, brown, and cinnamon bears, as well as grizzly bears---kill many more people than do electric blenders.

(E) Statistics show that the number of times people use electric blenders each year exceeds the number of times people play golf each year, which in turn far exceeds the number of contacts people have with grizzly bears each year.

选择E 是的，但是的确在C 上犹豫了，我在想C 不能作为他因去削弱吗- 就是说人们面对机会的不同决定是不是DANGEOUS 吗？是因为有MOST PEOPLE 所以大多数人的想法无关吗？

象E 这种STASTISTIC 引出的 一般都没什么问题吗？虽然知道他是 找出影响危险的另个原因

总感觉有点象 FALSE APPEAL 似的呢？