2. 职称英语
  3. In a certain rural area, people normally dispose of household garbage by burning

In a certain rural area, people normally dispose of household garbage by burning

游客2025-02-25  0
问题 In a certain rural area, people normally dispose of household garbage by burning it. Burning household garbage releases toxic chemicals known as dioxins. New conservation regulations will require a major reduction in packaging—specifically, paper and cardboard packaging—for products sold in the area. Since such packaging materials contain dioxins, one result of the implementation of the new regulations will surely be a reduction in dioxin pollution in the area.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?
选项 A、Garbage containing large quantities of paper and cardboard can easily burn hot enough for some portion of the dioxins that it contains to be destroyed.
B、Packaging materials typically make up only a small proportion of the weight of household garbage, but a relatively large proportion of its volume.
C、Per-capita sales of products sold in paper and cardboard packaging are lower in rural areas than in urban areas.
D、The new conservation regulations were motivated by a need to cut down on the consumption of paper products in order to bring the harvesting of timber into a healthier balance with its regrowth.
E、It is not known whether the dioxins released by the burning of household garbage have been the cause of any serious health problems.
答案 A
解析 This question requires us to identify a claim that seriously weakens the argument that new conservation regulations that require a major reduction in paper and cardboard packaging will reduce dioxin pollution in a certain rural area.
Dioxins are released when household garbage is burned. It seems reasonable to think that reducing packaging material that contains dioxins would help reduce dioxin pollution. Nevertheless, suppose for some reason burning large amounts of paper and cardboard containing dioxins actually—however counterintuitively—leads to a reduction in the amount of dioxins that pollute the environment. This would indicate a major weakness in the argument.
A    Correct. This claim tells us that garbage containing large quantities of paper and cardboard burns at such a high temperature that a portion of the dioxins in the garbage is destroyed. If so, then reducing quantities of paper and cardboard in burned garbage might in fact increase dioxin pollution,  not reduce it, despite the fact that paper and cardboard packaging contains dioxins.
B    This choice does not weaken the argument: the amount of dioxin pollution could still be reduced by reducing the amount of dioxin-containing packaging.
C    This choice is not relevant to the question. Even if per-capita sales of products sold in paper and cardboard packaging are relatively low in the area in question, it could still be the case that the amount of dioxin pollution in the area would be reduced if the amount of cardboard and paper packaging was reduced.
D    This choice provides an additional reason for the regulations; it thus does nothing to weaken the argument.
E    Health problems caused by burning dioxins are outside the scope of the argument. Remember, the argument is about whether the regulations will reduce dioxin pollution. Determining whether burning household garbage is harmful might be relevant to deciding whether the plan should be implemented. It is not relevant, though, to deciding whether the plan would work.
The correct answer is A.
转载请注明原文地址:https://tihaiku.com/zcyy/3971612.html
相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)