逻辑题，求大牛

supercury

A nutritionist studying the effects of massive doses of vitamin C found that of a group of 600 people who regularly took 1,500 mg of vitamin C daily for a year, fewer than 9 percent suffered serious cases of flu; of a group of 600 people who took 250 mg of vitamin C (the standard recommended daily allowance) daily for a year, 34 percent suffered at least one serious case of flu; and of a group of 600 people who took no vitamin C for a year (other than that found in the foods in a balanced diet), 32 percent suffered at least one serious case of flu.
Which of the following hypotheses is best supported by the evidence above?
(A) The effectiveness of vitamin C in preventing serious cases of flu increases in direct proportion to the amount of vitamin C taken.
(B) Vitamin C is helpful in preventing disease.
(C) Doses of vitamin C that exceed the standard recommended daily allowance by 500 percent will reduce the incidence of serious cases of flu by 25 percent.
(D) Massive doses of vitamin C can help to prevent serious case of flu.（D）
(E) A balanced diet contains less than 250 mg of vitamin C.
非常理解D是对的，但是想问问C的漏洞在哪里？

chchencheng

Inference question is must-be-true.

Where can you find that 25% reduction of flu in the passage?

supercury

I thought 9-34
SO we can't infer those information by ourselves? what's the tip

here?

zhouyeying

less than 9 => MORE than 25
不知道对不对

chchencheng

The word WILL in choice C kills it.

supercury

大牛，我还是不是很理解。。。不能用will...

chchencheng

WILL is absolute, definite, a very strong word. A hypothesis

with strong words needs strong evidence to back it up. The evidence

we have is not strong, only one study. Based on the study, are you

sure eating 500% VC WILL (definitely) reduce serious cases of flue

by 25%?

D), on the other hand, uses weak language --can-- and is, thus, the

correct choice for inference.

supercury

Thank you !