题目内容
收藏
纠错
Microfiber synthetics have been taking the place of natural fibers in an ever-increasing number of clothes because they provide the same durability and deplete fewer natural resources. A shirt made of microfiber synthetics is, however, three times as expensive to produce as a natural-fiber shirt. It follows that the substitution of microfiber synthetic clothes for natural-fiber clothes is, at this time, not recommended from a financial standpoint.
Which of the following statements, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?
-
AA microfiber synthetic shirt costs one-half the price of a natural-fiber shirt to maintain.
-
BThe production of microfiber synthetic clothes necessitates garment factories to renovate obsolete machinery and to hire extra workers to operate the new machines.
-
CThe upkeep of natural-fiber shirts is far less expensive than the upkeep of any other natural-fiber garment in current production.
-
DWhile producers anticipate that the cost of microfiber synthetics will remain stable, they recognize that the advent of recycling programs for natural fibers should bring down the costs of natural fibers.
-
EThe cost of providing stain guards for microfiber synthetic shirts would probably be greater than what garment producers now spend on stain guards for natural-fiber shirts.
A显示答案
