ChaseDream

标题: [求助] 一道逻辑 TT4-21 [打印本页]

作者: zimerman 时间: 2006-8-7 11:30
标题: [求助] 一道逻辑 TT4-21

Q21:

Editorial: The roof of Northtown Council’s 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 strongly supports the editorial’s argument?

The only other buildings whose roofs collapsed from the weight of the snowfall were older buildings constructed according to less exacting standards than those in the safety codes.
Because of the particular location of the equipment-storage building, the weight of snow on its roof was greater than the maximum weight allowed for in the safety codes.
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.
The columns of the building were no stronger than the building-safety codes required for such a building.
Because the equipment-storage building was where the council kept snow-removal equipment, the building was almost completely empty when the roof collapsed.

为什么选A 比较对象好像没提到啊。。。

作者: MaccMichAA 时间: 2006-10-17 16:22

Znn的帖子竟然么有人过问

直接事实加强支持结论

作者: chamcham 时间: 2007-6-26 16:24
A, same cause, then same effect. So support

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