According to a prediction of the not-so-distant future published in 1940, electricity would revolutionize agriculture. Electrodes would be inserted into the so and the current between them would kill bugs and weeds and make crop plants stronger.
Which of the following, if true, most strongly indicates that the logic of the prediction above is flawed?
(A) In order for farmers to avoid electric shock while working in the fields, the current could be turned off at such times without diminishing the intended effects.
(B) If the proposed plan for using electricity were put into practice, farmers would save on chemicals now being added to the soil.
(C) It cannot be taken for granted that the use of electricity is always beneficial.
(D) Since weeds are plants, electricity would affect weeds in the same way as it would affect crop plants.
(E) Because a planting machine would need to avoid coming into contact with the electrodes, new parts for planting machines would need to be designed.
题目分析：原文说的倒是很简单，说电流会植入土壤，帮植物杀虫让植物长的更强壮。A说为了让farmer避免电流，电流将会在不影响效果的情况下关闭，都不影响效果了，那就没有驳斥这个方法，我问的是驳斥，这个选项不满足要求。B说如果用电流，farmer将会省下一些化肥，没觉得加入电流不好，干掉。C说电流是否有好处其实不确定，这个是抬杠，原文就是说电流有好处，你说它有没有好处不好说，这不抬杠嘛，干掉。D说因为野草也是植物，如果用电流也会让野草长的比较茂盛，我听到这个选项觉得用电流还是不靠谱，驳斥了原文，留着。E说因为用了电流，播种机需要重新设计，你是否重新设计跟我有什么关系，干掉。
