熱血背包客莊ㄟ

A new and more aggressive form of the fungus that caused the Irish potato famine of the nineteenth century has recently arisen. However, since this new form of the fungus can be killed by increased application of currently used fungicides, it is unlikely that the fungus will cause widespread food shortages in countries that currently rely on potatoes for sustenance.

Which of the following, if true, most calls into question the conclusion in the argument above?

(A) Though potatoes are an important staple crop in many parts of the world, people in most countries rely primarily on wheat or rice for sustenance.

(B) Potato farmers in many countries to which the new form of the fungus has spread cannot afford to increase their spending on fungicides.

(C) The new form of the fungus first began to spread when contaminated potato seeds were inadvertently exported from a major potato-exporting country.

(D) Potato farmers in most countries use several insecticides on their crops in addition to fungicides of the sort that kill the new form of the fungus.

(E) Most governments have funds set aside that can be used to alleviate the effects of large-scale disasters such as severe food shortages and floods.

an argument= premises + conclusion，題目問到質疑結論，所以就是認為結論有瑕疵，基本上就是在考weaken，所以就看看前提是否可以被質疑，或是結論是某有反例出現，如果兩者取其一是的話，那就是答案。

logic book style :

P1 : A new and more aggressive form of the fungus that caused the Irish potato famine of the nineteenth century has recently arisen.

P2: However, since this new form of the fungus can be killed by increased application of currently used fungicides

C: it is unlikely that the fungus will cause widespread food shortages in countries that currently rely on potatoes for sustenance.

這裡一樣在Ｐ1中還有個前提， fungus that caused the Irish potato famine of the nineteenth century這關代是可以在細分為一個前提的，講出了『Fung造成Pot的傷亡』，凡事前提都有支持結論的功能，這關代就是有修飾作用以文法角度看他本來就是支持名詞的一個不完整句，當作補充說明用，為了省時間就不再化簡為繁了。結論也同樣隱藏了一個但書，食物匱乏是要在大家都吃馬鈴薯的地方才成立啊，不吃馬鈴薯基本上他們的食物匱乏跟Ｆ是不相干的，這是因為馬鈴薯缺少導致食物缺少，所以不吃馬鈴薯的人就不會有食物缺少的問題了，這讓我想到吃不到麵包吃蛋糕的故事，這就是那個白癡皇后的邏輯，但現實剛好相反。

中文版本：

前提一：新/激的Ｆ再現

前提二：可被FG處理掉

結論：吃馬鈴薯的人，因為Ｆ不造成食物短缺

連貫性：Ｆ和馬鈴薯的消長

反例：吃馬鈴薯的人，Ｆ『會』造成食物缺少，假設這個反例是成立的，是和選項可以連結的，那這個就是question the conclusion

選項分析：

(A) Though potatoes are an important staple crop in many parts of the world, people in most countries rely primarily on wheat or rice for sustenance.

這個看不到連慣性，沒有看到fungus，而且岔開話題去吃大麥，結論有rely on potatoes for sustenance.所以不能抬槓，直接刪

(B) Potato farmers in many countries to which the new form of the fungus has spread cannot afford to increase their spending on fungicides.

沒錢買殺菌劑，等於是前提二被消除，所以前提二被質疑，當前提被選項質疑成功時，這個結論就不穩固了，這就是歸納法的威力，Ａ→Ｂ→Ｃ...中間一個箭頭失效，之後的東西就跟骨牌一樣一路崩虧倒塌下去，所以只要其中一個邏輯前提點被質疑，接下來的全部就會一直倒下去了。

選（Ｂ）

補充：

(C) The new form of the fungus first began to spread when contaminated potato seeds were inadvertently exported from a major potato-exporting country.

連貫點不是時間

(D) Potato farmers in most countries use several insecticides on their crops in addition to fungicides of the sort that kill the new form of the fungus.

這個是對於前提二作加強，不只殺菌劑還有殺蟲劑也加了

(E) Most governments have funds set aside that can be used to alleviate the effects of large-scale disasters such as severe food shortages and floods.

政府不出錢相助，這個連貫性也不見了，造成飢荒之間的真兇沒提出。

以上個人筆記希望有幫助到大家，有誤再請指教!!