OG Q186

[小隻]

Q186 Offshore oil-drilling operations entail an unavoidable risk of an oil spill, but importing oil on tankers persently 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?
A) Tankers can easily be redesigned so that their use entails less risk of an oil spill.
B) Oil spills caused by tankers have generally been more serious than those cause by offshore operations.
C) The impact of offshore operations on the enviornment can controlled by careful management.
D) Offshore operations usually damage the ocean floor, but tankers rarely cause such damage.
E) Importing oil on tankers is currently less expensive than drilling for its offshore.

答案為 (A)
我的疑惑是:為什麼(E)不可以?
本文第1句表前提在比較承擔風險大小, 是當地鑽研挖油比進口油輪風險小
第2句表果, 雖然用IF, 但是現在式, 所以我當他陳述事實, 如果在沒有減少油使用情形下減少風險, 必須投資更多外海油田鑽研及利用油輪進口油.

因為WEAKEN,所以(E)不也直接了當地說利用油輪進口油較便宜了嗎? 還是本文中風險才是重點, 所以選(A)??

請各位看看我的解讀是否正確?TKS!

[fiona]

結論-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.
所以要WEAKEN結論當然要從風險著手，COST是無關選項

[小隻]

tks~fiona

[cecilia1211]

請問一下 為什麼 d 不可以阿
D) Offshore operations usually damage the ocean floor, but tankers rarely cause such damage.

我的想法是offshore常常會傷到海床 可是tanker 幾乎不會 所以 以環保的概念 是要用tanker 比較好阿.....

[維尼]

請問一下 為什麼 d 不可以阿
D) Offshore operations usually damage the ocean floor, but tankers rarely cause such damage.

我的想法是offshore常常會傷到海床 可是tanker 幾乎不會 所以 以環保的概念 是要用tanker 比較好阿.....

你說的沒錯
不過這題討論重點是 risk 的高低 以及依此所做的決定
所以d選項是無關選項

[dibert8]

關鍵字: oil spill
所以排除 (C) (D)
(B) (E) => strengthen 不選
(A) : less risk of an oil spill on tankers => import more oil on tankers