Any serious policy discussion about acceptable levels of risk in connection with explosions is not well served if the participants fail to use the word “explosion” and use the phrase “energetic disassembly” instead. In fact, the word “explosion” elicits desirable reactions, such as a heightened level of attention, whereas the substitute phrase does not. Therefore, of the two terms, “explosion” is the one that should be used throughout discussions of this sort.
Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument above depends?
(A) In the kind of discussion at issue, the advantages of desirable reactions to the term “explosion” outweigh the drawbacks, if any, arising from undesirable reactions to that term.
(B) The phrase “energetic disassembly” has not so far been used as a substitute for the word “explosion” in the kind of discussion at issue.
(C) In any serious policy discussion, what is said by the participants is more important than how it is put into words.
(D) The only reason that people would have for using “energetic disassembly” in place of “explosion” is to render impossible any serious policy discussion concerning explosions.（A）
(E) The phrase “energetic disassembly” is not necessarily out of place in describing a controlled rather than an accidental explosion.
请问B为什么不对，B的not拿掉后不是一个削弱吗？说energetic...是exposion的substitute，不正好削弱了原文吗，可是它为什么不是一个not+削弱的assumption呢？
谢谢！ | 
