返回列表 发帖

GWD3-Q17


GWD3-Q17 GWD3-Q17:

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?

A.
Even homeowners whose yards do not have water-conserving landscapes can conserve water by installing water-saving devices in their homes.

B.
A conventional landscape generally requires a much greater expenditure on fertilizer and herbicide than does a water-conserving landscape.

C.
A significant proportion of the residents of the city live in buildings that do not have yards.

A.
It costs no more to put in water-conserving landscaping than it does to put in conventional landscaping.

D.
Some homeowners use more water to maintain their yards than they use for all other purposes combined.


哪位大侠能给解释一下吗?正解是B我选A…… 这题的意思我没看太明白 但半猜半推地选了A

收藏 分享

问题是反驳Criticism,支持Brochure

B选项反驳了Criticism 因为 Critism说新的landscape不一定省钱 Brochure说这个东西节水所以省钱

B选项说了 传统的风景比新风景在施肥和除草方面花费更大 支持了Brochure省钱这一说法

TOP

哦 了了~ 我好像是题没看懂…… 哈哈 谢谢 =)

TOP

返回列表

站长推荐 关闭


美国top10 MBA VIP申请服务

自2003年开始提供 MBA 申请服务以来,保持着90% 以上的成功率,其中Top10 MBA服务成功率更是高达95%


查看