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.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?
There is less chance that the virus will infect domestic animals on Numa than that it will infect bilbies.
There are no species of animals on the island that prey on the rabbits.
Overgrazing by rabbits endangers many of the plants on which bilbies feed.
The virus that the government proposes to use has been successfully used elsewhere to control populations of rabbits.
There is no alternative means of reducing the rabbit population that would involve no threat to the bilby.
这道题的argument是: 因为virus可能会伤害到当地的bilbie,所以实施方案的话会INCREASE增加当地物种的风险。核心是风险是否增加,而不是其他评论提到的好处坏处。我们脑子里要想的是: 就算实施了风险也只是相等,或者更小。选项C提到了目前的BILBIE的风险已经很高,所以正确,即:本来的风险都很高(食物被兔子吃掉,Bilbie也会没吃的),我现在放进一个virus,也就是有可能使得Bilbie感染而已,都是要灭绝,何来风险INCREASE一说? E选项说的是: 所有减少兔子的方法都有风险。这个选项没提到实施前后风险的变化,可能有很多低风险的方案,也有高风险的。所以E选项肯定不对。
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论