ChaseDream

标题: [求助]lsat9-1-20 [打印本页]

作者: 247 时间: 2006-5-29 14:49
标题: [求助]lsat9-1-20

1. Saunders: Everyone at last week’s neighborhood association meeting agreed that the row of abandoned and vandalized houses on

Cariton Street

posed a threat to the safety of our neighborhood. Moreover, no one now disputes that getting the houses torn down eliminated that threat. Some people tried to argue that it was unnecessary to demolish what they claimed were basically sound buildings, since the city had established a fund to help people in need of housing buy and rehabilitate such buildings. The overwhelming success of the demolition strategy, however, proves that the majority, who favored demolition, were right and that those who claimed that the problem could and should be solved by rehabilitating the houses were wrong.

Which one of the following principles, if established would determine that demolishing the houses was the right decision or instead would determine that the proposal advocated by the opponents of demolition should have been adopted?

A. When what to do about an abandoned neighborhood building is in dispute, the course of action that would result in the most housing for people who need it should be the one adopted unless the building is believed to pose a threat to neighborhood safety.

B. When there are two proposals for solving a neighborhood problem, and only one of them would preclude the possibility of trying the other approach if the first proves unsatisfactory, then the approach that does not foreclose the other possibility should be the one adopted.

C. If one of two proposals for renovating vacant neighborhood buildings requires government funding whereas the second does not, the second proposal should be the one adopted unless the necessary government funds have already been secured.

D. No pain for eliminating a neighborhood problem that requires demolishing basically sound houses should be carried out until all other possible alternatives have been thoroughly investigated.

E. No proposal for dealing with a threat to a neighborhood’s safety should be adopted merely because a majority of the residents of that neighborhood prefer that proposal to a particular counterproposal.

为什么选B？有人能帮忙把问题翻译一下么？

谢谢！

作者: linxi107 时间: 2006-5-29 18:39

大致翻译一下，就是说居民区附近有废弃的房子，会对居民的安全造成潜在的威胁，但是大家都不同意把这些房子拆掉，理由是丰富多彩的。问题是，下面的选项中阐述的规则，哪一条，如果成立的话，可以支持翻修房子的提案？

B是说对一个问题的处理方法有两种，应该采用实施了之后如果不成功，不影响另一种方法重新实施的那种方法。

本题中房子如果拆了没有解决问题，就不能再翻修了。但如果翻修了没有解决问题，还可以再拆。所以B是支持翻修的。

我觉得我说得不全面，这里高人很多，欢迎指正。

作者: 247 时间: 2006-5-30 11:32

明白了，是我对问题没有理解，多谢！

作者: zxzhyzcy 时间: 2007-5-24 20:59

为什么Which one of the following principles, if established would determine that demolishing the houses was the right decision or instead would determine that the proposal advocated by the opponents of demolition should have been adopted? 就是“问题是，下面的选项中阐述的规则，哪一条，如果成立的话，可以支持翻修房子的提案？”？

向大家求教了~~~

作者: jieyulike 时间: 2007-5-29 10:58

Which one of the following principles, if established would determine that demolishing the houses was the right decision or instead
would determine that the proposal advocated by the opponents of demolition should have been adopted?

文章中提出了两种处理neighbourhood problem的方法，一种是demolishing;另一种是rehabilitating;问题问的就是哪一条规则可以确定地决定哪种方法是正确的。B确定地告诉我们demolishing是正确的，因此选B

作者: jieyulike 时间: 2007-5-29 11:01

写错了，B确定地告诉我们rehabilitating是正确的，因此选B

欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/)