狒狒逻辑 124

aaroncheng

It is repeatedly claimed that the dumping of nuclear waste poses no treat to people living nearby. If this claim could be made with certainty, there would be no reason for not locating sites in areas of dense population. But the policy of dumping nuclear waste only in the more sparsely populated regions indicates, at the very least, some misgiving about safety on the part of those responsible for policy.  

Which one of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the argument?  

(A) Evacuation plants in the event of an accident could not be guaranteed to work perfectly except where the population is small.  

(B) In the event of an accident, it is certain that fewer people would be harmed in a sparsely populated than in a densely populated area.  

(C) Dumping of nuclear waste poses fewer economic and bureaucratic problems in sparsely populated than in densely populated areas.  

(D) There are dangers associated with chemical waste, and it, too, is dumped away from areas of dense population.  

(E) Until there is no shred of doubt that nuclear dumps are safe, it makes sense to situate them where they pose the least threat to the public.

我疯了，完全不知道为什么选C。。。也不太明白题目的意思。

EvaCheng

明明是POSE NO treat，被你改成Danger了，这狒狒一大堆错，很多单词都打错了

aaroncheng

谢谢你拉

mudiduange

题的意思是：核被dump到人少的地方，说明核还是至少有一点危险的，与pose no danger的说法是不一致的；削弱：

C：往人少的地方dump是因为经济和政府因素，这说明不是因为核有danger而是其他的考虑，也就削弱了作者关于往人少的地方dump还是证明核有危险的说洗。。

这题感觉挺bug一开始做也错了。。。