GWD17-Q11: 感謝~

hedgeforfu

11. GWD17-Q11:
Some species of Arctic birds are
threatened by recent sharp increases in the population of snow geese, which
breed in the Arctic and are displacing birds of less vigorous species.
Although snow geese are a popular quarry for
hunters in the southern regions where they winter, the hunting season ends if
and when hunting has reduced the population by five percent, according to
official estimates.
Clearly, dropping
this restriction would allow the other species to
recover.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously
undermines the argument?

A   Hunting limits for snow geese
were imposed many years ago in response to a sharp decline in the population of
snow geese.
         B   It has been many years since the
restriction led to the hunting season for snow geese being closed earlier than
the scheduled date.
         C   The number of snow geese taken by
hunters each year has grown every year for several years.
         
• D   As their population has
  increased, snow geese have recolonized wintering grounds that they had not used
  for several seasons.

E.
In the snow goose’s
winter habitats, the goose faces no significant natural predation.
                             
ANS:B   
看過很多帖子的解答~~~大概能了解~B就是強調restriction沒有發揮功效~!

不過~~不懂restriction
是指什麼意思??  若是指5%的禁令~所以代表不用有restriction ~


就可以很快達到5%嗎??         還是指hunting season的 期間長短?   

  感謝指點~~!!

elaineyll

B的意思是已经有很多年打猎季节没有因为这个禁令而提前结束了，近几年打猎季节都是按照

一个规定的时间结束的，这个规定的时间跟5%没有关系，只是一个时间点而已，很久以前因为有

禁令，很快就打到5%，所以提前就结束了，而近几年到了规定时间才到5%或者还不到5%，所以这

个禁令的作用近几年就等于没有了，即使取消了禁令，打猎量也是小于等于5%的，所以禁令无用，结论不成立。

tomchengs

不太明白呢。。为什么说即使取消禁令打猎两也小于等于5%呢···难道不可能打得更多？

yoyo561116

Pay attention to the word "recent" in the statement. The sharp increase just happended recently although the hunting restriction has been enforced for a much longer time period. If the restriction is the cause of the increase of the snow geese, this increase should happened a long time ago not just recently. So choice B does weakens the argument.