Q15:

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?

1. Even homeowners whose yards do not have water-conserving landscapes can conserve water by installing water-saving devices in their homes.
2. A conventional landscape generally requires a much greater expenditure on fertilizer and herbicide than does a water-conserving landscape.
3. A significant proportion of the residents of the city live in buildings that do not have yards.
4. It costs no more to put in water-conserving landscaping than it does to put in conventional landscaping.
5. Some homeowners use more water to maintain their yards than they use for all other purposes combined.

   Answer: B

觉得conventional landscape 并没有在原题目中提及，为什么选B呢？

请高手们帮忙解释，谢谢！

偶的理解是：

批评者说新的贮水装置不省钱。削弱就说新东东能起到省钱作用，或不用新东东就会更费钱，B正好符合这个要求，B说传统的东东比新东东会在肥料和杀虫方面花much greater 的钱（当然至于为什么这样不是我们探讨的，尤其是考试的时候，千万别去想为什么。）也就是说新东东会省很多钱，直接削弱了批评者的结论。

这个题说了新东东的两个好处，一个省水，一个省钱，而反对者只说了不会省钱，所以就找是否关于省钱的选项就行，不用管节水的事。A是说节水的，偶觉得稍微会迷惑一下。