作者：英吉
Because ethylene dibromide, a chemical used to fumigate grain, was blamed for the high rate of nerve damage suffered by people who work in grain-processing plants, many such plants switched to other chemical fumigants two years ago. Since then, however, the percentage of workers at these plants who were newly diagnosed with nerve damage has not dropped significantly. Therefore, either ethylene dibromide was wrongly blamed or else the new chemicals also cause nerve damage.
Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?
A. If the new chemicals cause nerve damage, the nerve damage caused would be different from any nerve damage that ethylene dibromide may cause.
B. There are no chemical fumigants that are completely safe for workers in grain-processing plants.
C. If ethylene dibromide causes nerve damage, it does not take two years or longer for that damage to become detectable.
D. Workers at grain-processing plants typically continue to work there even after being diagnosed with nerve damage.
E. Workers at grain-processing plants that still use ethylene dibromide continue to have a high rate of nerve damage.
题目分析：A说这两种东西导致的nerve damage是否一样，没提，杀。B说没有fumigants是完全安全的，没说，杀。C说如果老的那种物质导致nerve damage，这种病至少得花两年才能被发现，后边没说，但是整体意思还是有点联系的，留着。D说这些地方的工人被查出有病后还会继续工作，扯得有点远了，杀。E说那些用老物质的工人师傅得病的比率会很高，没提，杀。（其实上课说了，假设就是问原文几个条件之间推理不严密，如果你把c这个选项放到原文条件中再念一次，你会发现原文严密了很多）
