因果
5000棵树=1KG药→继续制药会导致树灭绝
削弱
A、这种药发放给 doctors from a central authority，无关树灭绝
B、这种药贵，无关树灭绝
C、这种树的叶子用于很多药，无关，甚至加强

D、这种树被砍完还可以繁殖、也可以被栽培，CORRECT

E、这种树长在偏远之地，无关

OG：C The existence of uses for other parts of the tree opens the possibility that the ibora-bark drug would cause no increase in destruction of trees other than what exists already. If this information were provided, it would weaken support for the conclusion. Since it is not provided, this option does not significantly weaken the argument.

引入他因。

P：有效药来自一种树的树皮，这种树在野外很稀少的，且要很多的树皮才能产生一点药
C：持续的生产药会导致树灭绝
削弱方向：持续生产不会导致树灭绝
选项E：如果largely inaccessible的话，就没办法使药品continued production，谈论的点偏离了，应该关注的是持续生产会不会导致灭绝
选项D：没选D是觉得还需要一点脑补，即人们会使用cutting的方式培养。实际上，D直接给出了不会导致灭绝的方法。

The ibora can be propagated from cuttings and grown under cultivation.
=The ibora can be propagated from cuttings and (can be) grown under cultivation.
I可以通过扦插繁殖，可以通过人工种植存活。

grow, grew, grown,被动语态跟的是动词的完成式/过去分词而不是过去式
bark，树皮，狗吠，
trunk，躯干

还有一个思路rule out choice E, "generally grow"说明这种树被选中做成药物开始，就一直生长在不太容易接触得到的地方，但是这种一直都存在的inaccessible并没有让制药过程停下来

choice e, If it's in "largely inaccessible" places, then, tough nuts--it'll take more effort to get it (and the drug will consequently be super-expensive). But that doesn't change the fact that continued production = get more tree bark. Even if the only iboras left are on the moon.
如果这种树长在largely inaccessible的地方，只会让获取bark的成本提高。因而药物更贵。但是依然会发生extinct的结果

如果largely inaccessible的话，就根本没办法使药品continued production呀

that is quite rare in the wild. It takes the bark of 5,000 trees to make one kilogram of the drug.
只说 单位用量大，且野外稀少，但是不知道总的供给量（除了野外的）有多少，够不够大


E.讨论的问题是会不会灭绝～会不会用的完，和种植在哪里,能不能获取无关
Largely代表很难活的，并不是完全不可获得
largely inaccessible VS inaccessible的区别，加了largely反而更错

continued production of the drug → the ibora's extinction

因果，複因反方向

E项说的ibora比较难以获取，这只能说明会给continued production of the drug提高难度，或是让成品药的价格会更贵，但这和ibora是否会灭绝并无直接关系。

错选了E, E为什么不对呢