关于费费的124题，求解释

kurtsniper

124. It isrepeatedly claimed that the dumping of nuclear waste poses no treat to peopleliving nearby. If this claim could be made with certainty, there would be noreason for not locating sites in areas of dense population. But the policy ofdumping nuclear waste only in the more sparsely populated regions indicates, atthe very least, some misgiving about safety on the part of those responsiblefor policy.

Which one of thefollowing, if true, would most seriously weaken the argument?
A.      Evacuation plants in the eventof an accident could not be guaranteed to work perfectly except where thepopulation is small.
B.       In the event of an accident, itis certain that fewer people would be harmed in a sparsely populated than in adensely populated area.
C.       Dumping of nuclear waste posesfewer economic and bureaucratic problems in sparsely populated than in denselypopulated areas.
D.      There are dangers associatedwith chemical waste, and it, too, is dumped away from areas of densepopulation.
E.       Until there is no shred ofdoubt that nuclear dumps are safe, it makes sense to situate them where theypose the least threat to the public.

为什么答案是C，我认为A和C是一个思路，也是对的啊······

sealg

a选项是强化不是weaken吧，accident发生事故的核工厂只能在人少的时候才能保证完美解决。也就是还是说明核泄漏风险很大，所以选择人少的地方

kurtsniper

谢谢你的讲解，但是我还是有一点儿不太明白，A项中“evacuation plant”不就是排泄核垃圾的工厂设施吗，那么“核垃圾要排放到人口稀疏的地方是因为evacuation plant只有在人口稀疏的地方才可以运转良好”我觉得也是正确的啊

Calcium99

原文的核心是要表达对一个核排放安全性的质疑，理由是核排放设施都在人口稀疏地区，作者实际上做了一个假设的联系，也就是核设施在人口稀疏地区一定是因为核排放对人口密集地区不安全，因此要灭掉作者，就应该找到一个核设施设置在人口稀疏地区的另外一个原因，C说这个另外的原因是出于经济考虑而不是安全，因此符合上面的逻辑关系。而A实际上是一个无关选项，原因是注意原文的一个细节，作者要质疑的是核排放的安全问题，那个理由和证据都是考虑核排放，而A是说核设施本身，比如反应堆，这个和policy是无关的。
举个例子，比如有一个听证会评估一项限制汽车尾气的新规定，讨论应该围绕在尾气排放问题，汽车会不会熄火或者撞车不会影响尾气排放政策的评估。