[問題]GWD 29-Q37

[bonus]

Q37:
Rabbits were introduced to Numa Island in the nineteenth century. Overgrazing by the enormous population of rabbits now menaces the island’s agriculture. The government proposes to reduce the population by using a virus that has caused devastating epidemics in rabbit populations elsewhere. There is, however, a chance that the virus will infect the bilby, an endangered native marsupial. The government’s plan, therefore, may serve the interests of agriculture but will clearly increase the threat to native wildlife.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

A. There is less chance that the virus will infect domestic animals on Numa than that it will infect bilbies.
B. There are no species of animals on the island that prey on the rabbits.
C. Overgrazing by rabbits endangers many of the plants on which bilbies feed.
D. The virus that the government proposes to use has been successfully used elsewhere to control populations of rabbits.
E. There is no alternative means of reducing the rabbit population that would involve no threat to the bilby.

Answer: C

[bonus]

選項C -> 他因造成反果
原本被兔子破壞的原生植物
可以因兔子被病毒消滅而保留
並因此增加了原生動物的食物
保護了原生動物

[allen1230]

選項C -> 他因造成反果
原本被兔子破壞的原生植物
可以因兔子被病毒消滅而保留
並因此增加了原生動物的食物
保護了原生動物

---------------------------------------
上面(C)認同~~

但是請問(B)為何不行呢??

The government’s plan, therefore, may serve the interests of agriculture but will clearly increase the threat to native wildlife.

如果沒有其他的動物會吃兔子 (那就不會跟著中virus了啊~~)

[阿琪]

思路點：using a virus -->may serve the interests of agriculture but will clearly increase the threat to native wildlife
weaken: 不會有 interests 或 threat to native wildlife

(c)因為Rabbits會endangers其它plants，所以用不用virus都不會interests (weaken思路點)

(b) no species of animals --> prey on the rabbits與用不用virus 的思路點無關
論點不在於predator吃rabbit會傳給predator…而是virus本身就已會傳給bilby( bilby不是rabbits的predators，至少題目沒說)
(可能誤會了bilby是predator，因為prey而感染)

以上參考○魯！！