Which of the following most logically completes the argument below?
The expansion of large-scale farming in Africa and Asia has destroyed much of the natural vegetation on which elephants have historically depended, forcing them to turn to cultivated land to satisfy their enormous appetites. As a result, farmers have lost millions of dollars worth of crops annually. Yet even if elephant sanctuaries were created on a widespread basis to guarantee elephants sufficient natural vegetation, the raiding would likely persist, since .
when elephants forage for food, they typically travel in herds.
Foraging elephants have been known to cause substantial damage even to plants that they do not eat.
Some of the land where crops have suffered extensive damage from elephants has been allowed to return to its natural state.
Elephants tend to prefer cultivated crops to wild vegetation as a food source.
Elephant sanctuaries are usually created in areas that are rich in the natural vegetation on which elephants have historically depended.
B感觉也可以似的,和D的区别就是吃不吃东西,一个是从破坏角度一个从吃粮食的角度,都可以破坏人们的庄稼地,所以B和D的意思其实很相似,怎么不对呢?
B虽然也描述了大象的破坏性,但是感觉跟题目的逻辑链没什么关系呀,反观D解释了有庇护所之后大象仍然出去吃种植的粮食的原因
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论