返回列表 发帖

[求助]GWD8-15

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!

收藏 分享

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。

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