标题: OG16新题第4题 [打印本页] 作者: innocence8888 时间: 2015-12-9 19:45 标题: OG16新题第4题 4. Editorial: The roof of Northtown’s municipal equipment-storage building collapsed
under the weight of last week’s heavy snowfall. The building was constructed
recently and met local building-safety codes in every particular, except that the
nails used for attaching roof supports to the building’s columns were of a smaller
size than the codes specify for this purpose. Clearly, this collapse exemplifies how
even a single, apparently insignificant departure from safety standards can have
severe consequences.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the editorial’s argument?
(A) The only other buildings to suffer roof collapses from the weight of the
snowfall were older buildings constructed according to less exacting
standards than those in the codes.
(B) The amount of snow that accumulated on the roof of the equipmentstorage
building was greater than the predicted maximum that was used in
drawing up the safety codes.
(C) Because the equipment-storage building was not intended for human
occupation, some safety-code provisions that would have applied to an office
building did not apply to it.
(D) The municipality of Northtown itself has the responsibility for ensuring
that buildings constructed within its boundaries meet the provisions of the
building-safety codes.
(E) Because the equipment-storage building was used for storing snowremoval
equipment, the building was almost completely empty when the roof collapsed.
OA：B
如何解释C？他因：equipment-storage building的标准本身就比office building低，并不是nail的错。 作者: mnimi 时间: 2015-12-10 15:44
C选项，equipment-storage building的标准本身就比office building低, 不代表这个低标准就能够collapse
如果这个低标准在snow时候不能够collapse，那这个collapse就可能是因为nail不合标准。 作者: alzn2765 时间: 2016-1-16 14:37
他因：equipment-storage building的标准本身就比office building低，并不是nail的错。
C选项：Because the equipment-storage building was not intended for human occupation, some safety-code provisions that would have applied to an office building did not apply to it.
这个“低”字你是从哪里读出来的？我读完C选项也没找到有任何说标准低的意思。还是你自己添加了一个根据你自己理解的assumption：货仓的安全标准一定比办公室低？美国装核武器的货仓是货仓不？你觉得哪里的安全标准和办公室的安全标准哪个高？
some safety-code provisions that would have applied to an office building did not apply to it. 只是说有些办公室适用的安全标准仓库不适用。没错啊！就上面的例子，办公室可能对防火要求有核武器仓库对防火的要求一样吗？ 作者: Mlle_fernweh 时间: 2019-11-17 16:46
C选项：设备储藏间修来不是给人用的，许多运用到办公楼上的安全规程不会运用到储藏间的修建上。
P1: The nails used in the equipment-storage building were smaller than the safety code;
P2: The building using these smaller nails collapsed under the weight of heavy snowfall;
C1: Since "the nails were smaller in size/departure from the standard" and "the collapse under snowfall" coexist together, it must be the case that the insufficient size leads to the collapse.
C2: Any small, even insignificant departure from the safety standards can have severe consequences.
就能知道这个选项at best也只是在反驳前提，说nails were smaller是不存在的，因此显然是无效攻击；