扫描二维码，直接登录
题库 / GMATLA-CR-17
Because ethylene dibromide, a chemical used to fumigate grain, was blamed for the high rate of nerve damage suffered by people who work in grain-processing plants, many such plants switched to other chemical fumigants two years ago. Since then, however, the percentage of workers at these plants who were newly diagnosed with nerve damage has not dropped significantly. Therefore, either ethylene dibromide was wrongly blamed or else the new chemicals also cause nerve damage.
Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?
If the new chemicals cause nerve damage, the nerve damage caused would be different from any nerve damage that ethylene dibromide may cause.
There are no chemical fumigants that are completely safe for workers in grain-processing plants.
If ethylene dibromide causes nerve damage, it does not take two years or longer for that damage to become detectable.
Workers at grain-processing plants typically continue to work there even after being diagnosed with nerve damage.
Workers at grain-processing plants that still use ethylene dibromide continue to have a high rate of nerve damage.
结论的假设就是不是ethylene dibromide导致的神经损伤，所以才有结论 ed是被错怪了或者是别的原因导致的。而选项c表示如果是因为ed导致的，损伤不会等两年后才发生，也就是表明不是ed的原因。把c取非，如果损伤等到两年后发生，那么损伤就是ed造成的，结论就不成立。
谢谢！解释的好清楚啊！
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论
C并不会反驳前提-因为C如果成立的话，这个e确实要花两年来显现。那么原文第一句这个chemical was blamed for the high rate of damage, 可以是两年前的e物质导致的。