ChaseDream
搜索
返回列表 发新帖
查看: 3058|回复: 7
打印 上一主题 下一主题

大全-D-19-->携隐修改标题(大全 D-19)

[复制链接]
楼主
发表于 2004-12-10 17:12:00 | 只看该作者

大全-D-19-->携隐修改标题(大全 D-19)

19.   Since the 55-mile-per-hour speed limit was mandated on our highways, both money and human lives have been saved.



All of the following, if true, would strengthen the claim above EXCEPT:



(A) Most highway users find that travel times are not appreciably lengthened by the 55-mile-per-hour speed limit.



(B) Highway driving at 55 miles per hour or less is more fuel-efficient than high-speed driving.



(C) Nearly all highway safety experts agree that more accidents occur at speeds over 55 miles per hour than at lower speeds.



(D) The percentage of fatalities occurring in highway accidents at speeds greater than 55 miles per hour is higher than that for low-speed accidents.A



(E) Automobiles last longer and require fewer repairs when driven at consistently lower speeds.



Why the answer(A) is correct?


Can  sombody help me?


thanks!



沙发
发表于 2004-12-11 13:09:00 | 只看该作者

问哪个是支持“55mile限速能帮助保持安全和经济上好处”的。

A 55mile限速加长了旅程时间

B 55mile限速能省油

C 55mile以上的速度能造成更多事故

D 55mile以上速度造成致命事故的低速行驶的2倍

E 低速行驶能减少车损和车子维修

以上解释看出,A明显是个无关选项。

板凳
 楼主| 发表于 2004-12-11 22:20:00 | 只看该作者

(A)...........travel times are not appreciably lengthened by the 55-mile-per-hour speed limit.

Does (A) means lengthen time?

How can I get this point?

Thanks for your help?

地板
发表于 2004-12-12 09:23:00 | 只看该作者

not appreciably lengthened.没有稍微延长--〉多多延长了。

这题没什么疑问吧。非常清楚A不是支持推论的。既没有经济上的收益,也没有安全上的因素。你觉得A是个合适选项吗?

5#
 楼主| 发表于 2004-12-12 13:19:00 | 只看该作者

Thanks for your reply.

But when looked up the "appreciably" in the dictioonary ,it means "significantly".

Therefore,"not significantly lengthened"means "little lenhthened"

I am just confused of this selection,and I think other choices are right.

6#
发表于 2004-12-13 00:56:00 | 只看该作者

appreciably is noticable change. I looked it up in an English dictionary. You are right.

But anyway, the travle time has nothing to do with money, or at least it is not a direct factor related to money. Because less travel time doesn't necessarily mean less gas consumption, vice versa. So, among all of the answers, I think A is the least supportive to the conclusion.

7#
 楼主| 发表于 2004-12-13 08:38:00 | 只看该作者

I understand now.

Thanks for your reply!

8#
发表于 2005-9-27 20:11:00 | 只看该作者

歸納一下:


A- 開車時間無明顯加長.... 無壞處


B- 更省油.... 有好處


C- 車禍少.... 有好處


D- 死亡少.... 有好處


E- 修理少.... 有好處


選最弱的支持... 答案A

您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 立即注册

Mark一下! 看一下! 顶楼主! 感谢分享! 快速回复:

手机版|ChaseDream|GMT+8, 2024-10-6 14:38
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号

ChaseDream 论坛

© 2003-2023 ChaseDream.com. All Rights Reserved.

返回顶部