扫描二维码，直接登录
题库 / Prep2008E2-CR-100
Brochure: Help conserve our city's water supply. By converting the landscaping in your yard to a water-conserving landscape, you can greatly reduce your outdoor water use. A water-conserving landscape is natural and attractive, and it also saves you money.
Criticism: For most people with yards, the savings from converting to a water-conserving landscape cannot justify the expense of new landscaping, since typically the conversion would save less than twenty dollars on a homeowner's yearly water bills.
Which of the following, if true, provides the best basis for a rebuttal of the criticism?
Even homeowners whose yards do not have water-conserving landscapes can conserve water by installing water-saving devices in their homes.
A conventional landscape generally requires a much greater expenditure on fertilizer and herbicide than does a water-conserving landscape.
A significant proportion of the residents of the city live in buildings that do not have yards.
It costs no more to put in water-conserving landscaping than it does to put in conventional landscaping.
Some homeowners use more water to maintain their yards than they use for all other purposes combined.
情景：本题描述了将现行的景观转换成节水景观的优势。值得注意的是，本题的问题和Brochure的言论几乎没有关系，问题要我们削弱的是Criticism的说法。
推理：
前提：水费只能节省小于20美元
结论：新景观省下来的钱少于转换新景观的成本
答案预估：
那些“新景观省下来的钱少于转换新景观的成本”的其它必要条件（常理上能保真推理出的一切结果）不存在。
选项分析：
A选项：就算是那些没有装节水园林设计的房屋所有者也可以通过安装节水器具来节水。本选项没有提及新景观省下的钱，可以排除。
B选项：Correct. 传统的园林设计相对于新的园林设计来说需要更多的肥料和杀虫剂的支出。如果新景观省下的钱少，必定是在方方面面都不能更省钱。本选项给出了在“杀虫剂”方面可以省钱，属于削弱。
C选项：很多人住在没有院子的房子里。本选项和结论无关。
D选项：安装一个新的园林设计不会比安装一个传统的园林设计更贵。本选项对比的是传统和新的园林设计的价格，并不是新的园林在何处可以省钱。
E选项：有些人在院子上用的水比他在所有其他目的上用的水都多。本选项和结论无关。
草率结论，还有其他的省钱途径呢
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论