zagcollins wrote:Which of the following most logically completes the argument below?
The expansion of large-scale farming in Africa and Asia has destroyed much of the natural vegetation on which elephants have historically depended, forcing them to turn to cultivated land to satisfy their enormous appetites. As a result, farmers have lost millions of dollars worth of crops annually. Yet even if elephant sanctuaries were created on a widespread basis to guarantee elephants sufficient natural vegetation, the raiding would likely persist, since
A. when elephants forage for food, they typically travel in herds.
B. Foraging elephants have been known to cause substantial damage even to plants that they do not eat.
C. Some of the land where crops have suffered extensive damage from elephants has been allowed to return to its natural state.
D. Elephants tend to prefer cultivated crops to wild vegetation as a food source.
E. Elephant sanctuaries are usually created in areas that are rich in the natural vegetation on which elephants have historically depended.
this is an assumption question. we have address it by applying negation method.
the conclusion is" the raiding continue persist even we create sanctuaries.
If we negate D, elephants do not tend to prefer cultivated crops to wild vegetation as a food source. So, elephents will raid the cultivated crop for what. therefore, the conclusion will be weakened if we negate the answer choice D. therefore, it is correct answer
E cannot be correct because, elephant sanctuaries are created in areas where rich natural vegetation exists. so elephants may not attack the cultivated crops. therefore, answer choice E seem to weaken the argument. it is not correct answer.
.....actually I got this one correct because of my gut feel.....so....
