gwd 24-5逻辑题

banglixing

Q28: GWD-2-10
Environmentalist: The use of snowmobiles in the vast park north of Milville create sun acceptable levels of air pollution and should be banned.
Milville business spokesperson: Snowmobiling brings many out-of-towners to Milville in winter months, to the great financial benefit of many local residents. So, economics dictate that we put up with the pollution.
Environmentalist: I disagree: A great many cross-country skiers are now kept from visiting Milville by the noise and pollution that snowmobiles generate.
Environmentalist responds to the business spokesperson by doing which of the following?
A. Challenging an assumption that certain desirable outcome can derive from only one set of circumstances
B. Challenging an assumption that certain desirable outcome is outweighed by negative aspects associated with producing that outcome
C. Maintaining that the benefit that the spokesperson desires could be achieved in greater degree by a different means
D. Claiming that the spokesperson is deliberately misrepresenting the environmentalist’s position in order to be better able to attack it
E. Denying that an effect that the spokesperson presents as having benefited a certain group of people actually benefited those people
Answer: B
我选E,怎么都觉得B是错的阿
请大侠指教。。

zongzeng90

这个题是有点让人confuse.

banglixing

thanks!!

zhengxing

首先，题目中说环境学家认为snowmobiles产生了大量污染，应该禁止其使用
Milville business spokesperson：这个snowmobiles给当地人带来了很大的经济效益，这个使得

一定的污染是值得的
环境学家：因为这个snowmobiles产生的噪音和污染，很多滑雪者已经拒绝来这里了
问题是采用何种方式会反对那个 spokesperson的？

E选项：否认 spokesperson提出的那个对当地人有利的因素真的对这些人有利
这个是有些Confused, 不过细看的话可以看到，环境学家并没有直接的否定这一观点，而是提出了

反面的例子说明了这个观点带来的副作用超过了它带来的利益

B选项正好说明了上述的说法