建议使用官方纸质指南，查看对照完整题目
Biologists have advanced two theories to explain why schooling of fish occurs in so many fish species. Because schooling is particularly widespread among species of small fish, both theories assume that schooling offers the advantage of some protection from predators.
Proponents of theory A dispute the assumption that a school of thousands of fish is highly visible. Experiments have shown that any fish can be seen, even in very clear water, only within a sphere of 200 meters in diameter. When fish are in a compact group, the spheres of visibility overlap. Thus the chance of a predator finding the school is only slightly greater than the chance of the predator finding a single fish swimming alone. Schooling is advantageous to the individual fish because a predator's chance of finding any particular fish swimming in the school is much smaller than its chance of finding at least one of the same group of fish if the fish were dispersed throughout an area.
However, critics of theory A point out that some fish form schools even in areas where predators are abundant and thus little possibility of escaping detection exists. They argue that the school continues to be of value to its members even after detection. They advocate theory B, the "confusion effect," which can be explained in two different ways.
Sometimes, proponents argue, predators simply cannot decide which fish to attack. This indecision supposedly results from a predator's preference for striking prey that is distinct from the rest of the school in appearance. In many schools the fish are almost identical in appearance, making it difficult for a predator to select one.The second explanation for the "confusion effect" has to do with the sensory confusion caused by a large number of prey moving around the predator. Even if the predator makes the decision to attack a particular fish, the movement of other prey in the school can be distracting. The predator's difficulty can be compared to that of a tennis player trying to hit a tennis ball when two are approaching simultaneously.
我有更好的解析 
暂无雷哥网文字解析
A选项说讨论两个理论，与文章主要内容相符；
B选项说分析两种技术，文中没有提到任何技术；
C选项说为两种假说辩护，作者并没有为两个理论辩护；
D选项说推翻既成观念，文章只是提到两个理论可以解释鱼集群现象，并没推翻既成观念
E选项说提出新证据，文章并没提到新证据；
因此，正确答案为A
请问C为什么不对？感觉基本上作者就是在为这两个理论辩护。
0
0
回复
2018-08-01 13:36:03
mich回复shanzixiaodi
文章只是说 对于schooling of fish 可以减少鱼群被捕食者吃掉的机率这个现象 有两个theory 然后分别指出了这两个theory的内容 没有个人的倾向 如果是辩护的话 我觉得应该是 “我觉得这个理论说的是哪里哪里是对的” 会有个人的倾向
0
0
回复
2019-01-25 22:12:55
太多的不懂
0
0
回复
2015-07-14 09:18:56
***3962回复***3962
不懂就要问
0
0
回复
2015-07-14 09:20:33
***3962回复我是小虾虾
what
0
0
回复
2015-07-14 09:25:23
科目：
阅读RC
来源：
OG16
1m20s
平均耗时
86.5%
平均正确率
该题由网友CvhuvkNk提供 上传GMAT题
分享
周末、晚班滚动开班 
24+35+35+6课时 
