请教逻辑GWD-29-Q37

xiaoguolulu

Rabbits were introduced to Numa Island in the nineteenth century.  Overgrazing by the enormous population of rabbits now menaces the island’s agriculture.  The government proposes to reduce the population by using a virus that has caused devastating epidemics in rabbit populations elsewhere.
There is, however, a chance that the virus will infect the bilby, an endangered native marsupial.  The government’s plan, therefore, may serve the interests of agriculture but will clearly increase the threat to native wildlife.（weaken“对argriculture有益，对wildl威胁”为什么是C——C不是support了吗？）


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

A.      There is less chance that the virus will infect domestic animals on Numa than that it will infect bilbies.

B.       There are no species of animals on the island that prey on the rabbits.

C.      Overgrazing by rabbits endangers many of the plants on which bilbies feed.

D.      The virus that the government proposes to use has been successfully used elsewhere to control populations of rabbits.

E.       There is no alternative means of reducing the rabbit population that would involve no threat to the bilby.

answer:C?我怎么觉得都不太对。。。

xiaomakunkun

谁能讲讲A呢。。我觉得a也很对的啊

avagmat

这题对比了几家的分析后，提出点想法，请帮忙看看是否可以这么理解：（主要是针对原文的Argument的）

The government’s plan, therefore, may serve the interests of agriculture but will clearly increase the threat to native wildlife.

这个Argument，分两部分，前一部分，"may serve the interests of agriculture" 作者写的是May... , 我觉得可以不要理会，反正是可能，反过来除非证明是不可能，要不成立的可能性很大。这题我感觉主要还是集中精力chanllenge 后半段，“will clearly increase the threat to native wildlife”. 这意见很绝对，只要能证伪，或削弱，这题目的就实现了。所以就在选项中直接找能削弱这一部分的好了。

感觉这样这题做起来好理解一些，只是不知道思路对不对，大家讨论一下？？

gonghao

原文是这样说的：
事实1： 兔子太多，乱吃所有东西
事实2： 毒药能杀兔子，但也可能杀想保护的动物。
结论：  政府 只顾着农业，不管珍惜动物。
其中的隐含假设就是：珍惜动物只会从农药里收到伤害，得不到好处
但如果事实上，当兔子少了的时候，植物多了，珍稀动物吃的东西多了，对繁殖有大大的好处，那不就说明上面的结论错了么？政府用毒药不仅杀了兔子，其实也在保护珍稀动物啊
其实这就是 C 了。所以C是正确的。