一道逻辑题,关于生物的

iamtiger555

Damaged nerves in the spinal cord do not regenerate themselves naturally, nor even under the spur of nerve-growth stimulants. The reason, recently discovered, is the presence of never-growth inhibitors in the spinal cord. Antibodies that deactive those inhibitors have now been developed. Clearly, then,nerve repair will be a standard medical procedure in the foreseeable future.

which of the following, if true, casts the most serious doubt on the accuracy of the prediction above?
(a) Prevention of the regeneration of damaged nerves is merely a by-product of  the main funcation of the substances inhibiting nerve growth.
(b)Certain nerve-growth stimulatants have sumilar chemical structures to those of the antibodies against nerve-growth inhibitors.
(c)Nerves in the brain are similar to nerves in the spinal cord in their inability to regenerate themselves naturally.
(d)Researcher have been able to stimulate the growth of nevers not located in the spinal cord by using only nerve-growth stimulatants.
(e)Deactivating the substances inhibiting never growth for an extended period would require a steady supply of antibodies.

我可以排除(C,D,E)项,但为何答案是A?想不通.
有高手可以指点一下吗?多谢!

iamtiger555

一针见血,搞定了,谢谢,

tongxun

因为这种物质阻碍神经生长的作用只是它的一个附带性的作用，也就是说，这种物质在人体内可能有其他对维持机体正常功能更重要的作用。类似因噎废食吧？

iamtiger555

我又想了想,好象有点通了,是因为问题的问法,关键在于"精度"和"准确"度.
所以只可能是A,不能是B.
谢谢,高手的点拨.G友还应该仔细看清ETS的问法.

iamtiger555

可能是因为有相似的"化学结构"并不能保证一定可以有那种效果的缘故吧.
楼上的高手说的对,关键在于"标准医疗过程",但是"很大的伤害"也只是我们的估计呀.
为什么,ETS就选它呢???

iamtiger555

多谢楼上的高手的意见,

tongxun

这题在选项A、B间确实容易混淆。
问题的关键在于：standard medical procedure
“规范的医疗处理方式”。但A 中提到了，这个只是the substances inhibiting nerve growth.的一个附带性的作用。
若真的拿他来做为标准的临床治疗方式，则有可能造成很大的伤害。

B 提出的是两者结构上的相似。即有可能治疗无效。

按感觉，我会选A。但为什么B 不能选，我还不是十分清楚。

请高人回答！