[LR][PT34-S2-Q8] Conservationist:

waimanUID: 2892309

Conservationist: The risk to airplane passengers from collisions between airplanes using the airport and birds from the wildlife refuge is negligible. In the 10 years since the refuge was established, only 20 planes have been damaged in collisions with birds, and no passenger has been injured as a result of such a collision. The wildlife refuge therefore poses no safety risk.

Pilot: You neglect to mention that 17 of those 20 collisions occurred within the past 2 years, and that the number of birds in the refuge is rapidly increasing. As the number of collisions between birds and airplanes increases, so does the likelihood that at least one such collision will result in passenger injuries.

The pilot counters the conservationist by

(A) attempting to show that the conservationist's description of the fact is misleading

(B) questioning the conservationist's motives for reaching a certain conclusion

(C) asserting that dangerous situations inevitably become more dangerous with the passage of time

(D) discrediting the moral principle on which the conservationist's argument is based

(E) disputing the accuracy of the figures cited by the conservationist
---------------------------------------------------------------------
OA is (A), and I don't know why (C) is wrong.
Is it because (1) the pilot mentions A dangerous situation but rather dangerous situationS.
or (2) it is not with the passage of time but with the increase of birds?
However, both explanations seem unnatural for me.

Thanks!

duijinxiaoziUID: 2585955

Pilot:
no safety risk--->dangerous
------------------------------------------
(C)
dangerous ---> more dangerous

waimanUID: 2892309

不錯的觀點，謝謝板主。 :handshake