In a certain rural area, people normally dispose of household garbage by burning it. Burning household garbage releases toxic chemicals known as dioxins. New conservation regulations will require a major reduction in packaging—specifically, paper and cardboard packaging—for products sold in the area. Since such packaging materials contain dioxins, one result of the implementation of the new regulations will surely be a reduction in dioxin pollution in the area.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?
Garbage containing large quantities of paper and cardboard can easily burn hot enough for some portion of the dioxins that it contains to be destroyed.
Packaging materials typically make up only a small proportion of the weight of household garbage, but a relatively large proportion of its volume.
Per-capita sales of products sold in paper and cardboard packaging are lower in rural areas than in urban areas.
The new conservation regulations were motivated by a need to cut down on the consumption of paper products in order to bring the harvesting of timber into a healthier balance with its regrowth.
It is not known whether the dioxins released by the burning of household garbage have been the cause of any serious health problems.
这题就难在A本身也不是很强的削弱项
逻辑链是 事实:垃圾烧了产生二恶英;regulation:paper package包含二恶英,package减少,二恶英就减少
A:package本身烧了也产不出多少二恶英,而有没有package,并不会影响到垃圾烧了产出的二恶英的数量变化
所以package减少并不一定会影响到二恶英的减少,所以二恶英不一定会减少=削弱二恶英会减少
不过无论如何我觉得这样的解释还是有些牵强
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论