扫描二维码，直接登录
题库 / Prep2007E2-CR-38
Offshore oil-drilling operations entail an unavoidable risk of an oil spill, but importing oil on tankers presently entails an even greater such risk per barrel of oil. Therefore, if we are to reduce the risk of an oil spill without curtailing our use of oil, we must invest more in offshore operations and import less oil on tankers.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument above?
Tankers can easily be redesigned so that their use entails less risk of an oil spill.
Oil spills caused by tankers have generally been more serious than those caused by offshore operations.
The impact of offshore operations on the environment can be controlled by careful management.
Offshore operations usually damage the ocean floor, but tankers rarely cause such damage.
Importing oil on tankers is currently less expensive than drilling for it offshore.
记住：损害和风险不是一回事！
损害和风险无关
文章的goal：reduce risk
所以A选项明确提到了改造tankers可以降低风险
D选项说海上开采会破坏海床，但是tanker不会 与风险无关！！！
oil-drilling带来oil spill的风险，但是importing oil on tankers 带来更高的风险。
因此如果想要降低风险，又不用抑制oil use。应该投入更多在oil-drilling，减少importing oil on tankers
choice a, tanker可以被轻易得重新设计这样oil spill的风险更小。correct
choice d, offshore会破坏海床，而tankers不会带来这样的破坏。 -> 算是offshore的一个副作用，但是依然无法撼动offshore lower risk的优点
文章的goal：reduce risk
所以A选项明确提到了改造tankers可以降低风险
D选项说海上开采会破坏海床，但是tanker不会 与风险无关！！！
我认为是方案推理
目标：减少原油泄漏
方案：多offshore operations 少tankers
削弱方向： CQ1不可行 tanker可以被改装的符合目标
D：海上开采会破坏海床但是tanker不会--看似一个方案的副作用，其实是无关选项，文章说的是为了降低风险，{所以}。。weaken的方向应该是--此方案不能降低风险
A：tanker--redesign--降低风险--说明tanker更好（这个不算反前提，因为前提中有个小词--【presently】 tanker risk higher--暗示可以change的 ）
因果。
因：tanker比operation更漏油。
果：为了保持用油 同时减少漏油，我们少用tanker。
削弱：为了保持用油 同时减少用油，我们不一定少用tanker。可能因本身有问题，也可能其他因素使得operation漏油比tanker多。
B，C方向反了。E 价格与目标无关。 D 和目标无关。 A 质疑了因。