38. Amphibian populations are declining in numbers worldwide. Not coincidentally, the earth’s ozone layer has been continuously depleted throughout the last 50 years. Atmospheric ozone blocks UV-B, a type of ultraviolet radiation that is continuously produced by the sun, and which can damage genes. Because amphibians lack hair, hide, or feathers to shield them, they are particularly vulnerable to UV-B radiation. In addition, their gelatinous eggs lack the protection of leathery or hard shells. Thus, the primary cause of the declining amphibian population is the depletion of the ozone layer.

Each of the following, if true, would strengthen the argument EXCEPT:

(A) Of the various types of radiation blocked by atmospheric ozone, UV-B is the only type that can damage genes.

(B) Amphibian populations are declining far more rapidly than are the populations of nonamphibian species whose tissues and eggs have more natural protection from UV-B.

(C) Atmospheric ozone has been significantly depleted above all the areas of the world in which amphibian populations are declining.

(D) The natural habitat of amphibians has not become smaller over the past century.

(E) Amphibian populations have declined continuously for the last 50 years.

我做题时直觉选了A。题目版的费费135提供的答案也是A。但是，在详解版的费费135中，答案是D。

详解版的解释是：

A：支持说明为什么是UV-B而不是其他原因。

B：支持说明为什么UV-B会降低两栖动物的数量。

C：提供空间论据说明臭氧层受损和两栖动物数量减少的相关性。

D：中性评价。不Weaken也不Strengthen.

E：提供时间论据说明臭氧层受损和两栖动物数量减少的相关性。

但是我不是很理解。我的思路是：A）UV-B is the only type that can damage genes.强调only对原文并没有帮助。原文已经说了UV-B是导致两栖动物数量减少的原因（通过伤害基因），所以再说一遍（即使强调了唯一）也没有加强结论。 D）两栖动物栖息地的减少有可能导致两栖动物的减少，现在排除他因，起到加强结论的作用。

请哪位牛人帮忙答疑解惑，谢谢！

A does reinforce the argument, since it eliminates other factors connected with the depletion of the ozone layer that may as well cause damages to life/gene.

D is a neutral choice.

我也认为选D
“原文已经说了UV-B是导致两栖动物数量减少的原因（通过伤害基因），”，这句话我觉

得不对，原文没有说这是原因，只是在探索是不是原因，如果原文都说了这是原因，就没

有必要加强了呀。原文的意思是“UV导致基因减少，从而推断它有可能是动物数量下降的

原因”A排出他因，排除其他辐射也会对动物造成伤害，从而加强是UV的原因。D我认为你

的分析存在主观判断“两栖动物栖息地的减少有可能导致两栖动物的减少”为什么栖息地

减少数量就要减少？密度不能增大么？栖息地和数量的因果联系应该属于主观推断了。

不是牛人，说说我的看法