求问逻辑十套里的一题

大懒虫fgnUID：3278912

Between 1970 and 1980, energy consumption by   
United States industry peaked and then declined, so  
that by 1980 total industrial use of energy was below   
the 1970 level even though total industrial output   
had grown substantially in the same period. Industry  
must have instituted highly effective energy conser-
vation measures in those years to have achieved such  
impressive results.   

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weak-
ens the conclusion of the argument?

(A) Many industries switched to the greatest extent   
possible from high-priced oil to lower-priced  
alternatives throughout the 1970's.
(B) Total residential energy consumption was higher   
in the United States in 1980 than it had been  
in 1970   
(C) Many industrial users of energy had paid little   
attention to energy conservation prior to 1970.
(D) Industrial output grew less rapidly from 1970 to   
1980 than it had from 1960 to 1970.
(E) The industries whose production dropped sharply  
during the 1970's included a disproportionately  
large number of energy-intensive industries.   

--------------------------------------------------------------
答案选E。
我选了A，我觉得这样可以既使总能源消耗减少，也不减少产量。同时也不属于文中提的conservation measures。
答案E不是有可能总产量减少的么？？？
求解答。。。。

轻薄的假象UID：3264386

A不对之处在于原文中说的是70年代的energy consumption下降了，而A中所说只是工厂从高价格的石油转向了其他替代性能源，总的energy消耗并没有减少.与文中所陈述的事实相悖。LZ估计是读题的时候带入性的直接把oil等同于energy了，我第一遍看的时候也这样。

苏梳眠UID：2717864

原因：1970年工业耗能比1980年工业耗能，但是工业产量却低。
结论：1980年的节能措施生效。
我们要找到就是其他的可以导致上述现象的原因。
A中高油价和低油价乍一看似乎可以增加产量，但殊不知用油量的未知因素，不能保证工业能耗的下降。
E中强调高能耗企业的产品量下降，因而造成总体能耗下降。但产量可能下降。
AE都存在问题。E更佳。