ChaseDream

标题: 大全10-19 [打印本页]

作者: pinkcutie 时间: 2006-10-18 13:57
标题: 大全10-19

In the United States, injuries to passengers involved in automobile accidents are typically more severe than in Europe, where laws require a different kind of safety belt. It is clear from this that the United States needs to adopt more stringent standards for safety belt design to protect automobile passengers better.

Each of the following, if true, weakens the argument above EXCEPT:

(A) Europeans are more likely to wear safety belts than are people in the United States.

(B) Unlike United States drivers, European drivers receive training in how best to react in the event of an accident to minimize injuries to themselves and to their passengers.

(C) Cars built for the European market tend to have more sturdy construction than do cars built for the United States market.

(D) Automobile passengers in the United States have a greater statistical chance of being involved in an accident than do passengers in Europe.（D）

(E) States that have recently begun requiring the European safety belt have experienced no reduction in the average severity of injuries suffered by passengers in automobile accidents.

为什么答案是d不是c

作者: 晴天小狗 时间: 2006-10-18 14:23
C 是一个weaken，他证明了：即使us用安全带，也可能没有效果，因为不是安全带造成的差异，而是汽车本身的强度。（eu的比us的结实，所以安全，而不是安全带的功劳）

作者: pinkcutie 时间: 2006-10-18 14:43

但是我怎么觉得d也是个weaken呢

(D) Automobile passengers in the United States have a greater statistical chance of being involved in an accident than do passengers in Europe.

因为accidents比较多，所以会有更多的severe的injury

作者: 晴天小狗 时间: 2006-10-18 14:47

那你自己给架桥了吧

是你自己说的：事故多，就严重。原文没说

作者: pinkcutie 时间: 2006-10-18 15:21

那汽车强度高，驾驶的人出事故时伤害轻

不也是自己架桥了么

怎么掌握这个度呢

作者: 晴天小狗 时间: 2006-10-18 15:29

有道理

理解错了：（

D应该是个支持吧，事故多，所以需要安全带。讨论一下

作者: itokinblue 时间: 2006-10-18 21:33

以下是引用晴天小狗在2006-10-18 15:29:00的发言：

有道理

理解错了：（

D应该是个支持吧，事故多，所以需要安全带。讨论一下

you are wrong,because there is no relationship between the possibility of accidents and severity of injuries.

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