再问GWD-2-32，帮忙啊

GWD 32

Press secretary: Our critics claim that the President’s recent highway project cancellations demonstrate a vindictive报复的 desire to punish legislative districts controlled by opposition parties. They offer as evidence the fact that 90% of the projects cancelled were in such districts. But all of the cancelled projects had been identified as wasteful in a report written by respected nonpartisan auditors. So the President’s choice was clearly motivated by sound budgetary policy, not partisan politics.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the press secretary’s argument depends?

A.     Canceling highway projects was not the only way for the President to punish legislative districts controlled by opposition parties.

B.     The scheduled highway projects identified as wasteful in the report were not mostly projects in districts controlled by the President’s party.

C.     The number of projects cancelled was a significant proportion of all the highway projects that were to be undertaken by the government in the near future.

D.    (Omitted)

E.     Reports by nonpartisan auditors are not generally regarded by the opposition parties as a source of objective客观存在的 assessment of government projects

搜索前人们的帖子，我怎么愣没看明白，为什么选B啊，能不能不对B取非，说明为什么选B啊（因为取非后，有点明白，但不取非，脑就晕了）

mindfree有个解释

http://forum.chasedream.com/dispbbs.asp?boardID=24&ID=73286&page=3

我们的批评者认为――总统最近对高速公路计划的否决案表明了一个报复性的渴望，即想惩罚被反对党控制的立法委员会。批评者提供一个事实，即被否决的提案中有90%是由反对党提出的。但是所有被否决的提案都被一个受尊敬的非党派人士认为是浪费。所以，总统的选择显然是出于合理的预算考虑，而不是出于党派利益。

B 在那份报告中认为是浪费的高速公路计划　大部分　不是　总统所在党派提出的计划。

如果此时对B取非，答案为没B问题

但B我可以不取非，也可证明，只要引申一步，“在那份报告中认为是浪费的高速公路计划　大部分　是　反对党派提出的计划”

由于上方的假设前提，才使得　尽管原文有“被否决的提案中有90%是由反对党提出的”，但结论－总统的选择显然是出于合理的预算考虑，而不是出于党派利益－依然成立！

累啊，但总算解决了，严重感谢les . lawyer(hehe排名不分先后)

你把问题弄的那么复杂, 害得我看中文都不懂了.

根据B: 如果都是总统那伙人的项目, 反对者拿它去批判总统还是表扬总统?