扫描二维码，直接登录
题库 / GMATAdvanced-CR-21
Researchers in City X recently discovered low levels of several pharmaceutical drugs in public drinking water supplies. However, the researchers argued that the drugs in the water were not a significant public health hazard. They pointed out that the drug levels were so low that they could only be detected with the most recent technology, which suggested that the drugs may have already been present in the drinking water for decades, even though they have never had any discernible health effects.
Which of the following, if true, would most strengthen the researchers’ reasoning?
If a drug found in drinking water is not a significant public health hazard, then its presence in the water will not have any discernible health effects.
There is no need to remove low levels of pharmaceutical drugs from public drinking water unless they present a significant public health hazard.
Even if a substance in drinking water is a public health hazard, scientists may not have discerned which adverse health effects, if any, it has caused.
Researchers using older, less sensitive technology detected the same drugs several decades ago in the public drinking water of a neighboring town but could find no discernible health effects.
Samples of City X’s drinking water taken decades ago were tested with today’s most recent technology, and none of the pharmaceutical drugs were found.
结论是the researchers argued that the drugs in the water were not a significant public health hazard. 药不是公众健康的威胁。
A把结论进行if，如果结论成立，那么药不用移除，没法加强结论
B除非药是对公众健康的威胁，否则不需要移除。跟A是一个意思。
D，以前监测过，没监测出来。结合原文内容看，这可以印证之前提到过的只有用最新技术才能监测出来，也印证了药的含量低的事情。注意这里有一个限定，the public drinking water of a neighboring town，监测的邻近镇的水，而不是city X的水，是存在一定差异的。一其它选项都不能很好地加强；二构建场景，这里监测的应该是诸如地下水、自然水等统一的供水系统，隔壁镇与city X可以共用一套水源，比如上海的自来水来自于崇明xx采水点，不管静安区还是闸北区的自来水都来自这个采水点；农夫山泉江浙沪的采水点都在千岛湖。
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论