标题: lsat-9-1-20 [打印本页] 作者: ygjm 时间: 2003-12-27 14:42 标题: lsat-9-1-20 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.
20. 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.
答案是B，问的是， A错在哪里？ 我感觉， A也是可以接受的啊。 各位牛牛指教！
作者: 八戒 时间: 2003-12-27 17:06
我觉得选项A只能支持that the proposal advocated by the opponents of demolition should have been adopted，而没有办法满足问题的另外一个条件，既：demolishing the houses was the right decision。
而B虽然刚开始一看，好象也和A差不多，就支持应该先修复房屋，不应该推倒它。 可是在B中有一个条件语句：if the first proves unsatisfactory。 也就是说，如果也有可能推倒房屋这个建议也是可行的，因为题目中已经用过去的例子说明了第一个建议更好。
讨论.......作者: zida 时间: 2003-12-27 18:12
The question is which one if established then it would determine-----------to adopt demolishing rather than---------- to opponent (don’t demolishing) it. Am I right? If so, A is saying do not demolish it unless it threatening to neighborhood. But, the premise is it does so. This is the far I can go, please comments.作者: ygjm 时间: 2003-12-27 19:47
谢谢楼上： 不过我认为， A “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” ，注意， 这里有个unless，实际上包含了两层意思， 即当building没有危险时，考虑翻修；而有危险时， 则以拆除为上。这不正是给题干中的两个选择以一个参照标准吗？作者: dansy 时间: 2003-12-27 20:57
我觉得A的意思还是倾向于说“在有争执时，如果房子没危险，就考虑翻修”，支持那个翻修的主张，答案B更两面俱到些。 不懂有没有道理。
