In the two years following the unification of Germany in 1989, the number of cars owned by residents of East Germany and the total distance traveled by cars in East Germany both increased by about 40 percent. In those two years, however, the number of East German residents killed each year as car occupants in traffic accidents increased by about 300 percent.
Which of the following, if true, most helps to explain the disproportionate increase in traffic fatalities?
(A) The average number of passengers per car was higher in the years before unification than it was in the two years after.
(B) After unification, many people who had been living in
(C) After unification, a smaller proportion of the cars being purchased by East German residents were used vehicles.
(D) Drivers who had driven little or not at all before 1989 accounted for much of the increase in the total distance traveled by cars.
(E) Over the same two-year period in
原文说的是死掉的人增加了300％吧，我理解错了？
如果是死掉的人增加了300％，那和新手上路有啥关系，应该是一次车祸死了一车人才可以解释阿。。。。。。
我的看法，要首先理解题干中为什么会用到however，也就是为什么、是什么让作者感到疑惑。
给出的数据说：虽然车的数量和里程数没有增加多少，但是死亡的人却增加了很多,而死亡数=基数*事故率，暗含的意思是说事故率增加了。
而若选A，你就暗含了一个假设：即事故率没有显著变化（或者增加了），而这个假设从已知中推不出来。
C是说事故率增加了（因为都是新手），所以死亡数=事故率*车的数量（或里程数）增加了。
I think D is better since A can't explain 'disproportionate increase in traffic fatalities?'
By the way , where do you find the PP and answer, would you send me a copy at jimmy7yu[在] yahoo.com?
我看错选项了
| 欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/) | Powered by Discuz! X3.3 |