Press Secretary: Our critics claim that the President’s recent highway project cancellations demonstrate a vindictive desire to punish legislative districts controlled by opposition parties. They offer as evidence the fact that 90 percent of the projects canceled were in such districts. But all of the canceled projects had been identified as wasteful in a report written by respected nonpartisan auditors. So the President’s choice was clearly motivated by sound budgetary policy, not partisan politics.
Which of the following is an assumption on which the press secretary’s argument depends?
A. Canceling highway projects was not the only way for the President to punish legislative districts controlled by opposition parties.
B. The scheduled highway projects identified as wasteful in the report were not mostly projects in districts controlled by the President’s party.
C. The number of projects canceled was a significant proportion of all the highway projects that were to be undertaken by the government in the near future.
D. The highway projects canceled in districts controlled by the President’s party were not generally more expensive than the projects canceled in districts controlled by opposition parties.
E. Reports by nonpartisan auditors are not generally regarded by the opposition parties as a source of objective assessments of government projects.
答案是(B),看完之前的讨论帖后大致可理解
但是想请问(C)当初的思路是因为绝大部分被canceled掉的projects之后是要由政府来承担的
the government我就直接跟题目中的President联想在一起了,所以补足了the President’s choice
was clearly motivated by sound budgetary policy, not partisan politics.
因为如果President canceled projects纯粹是因为desire to punish legislative districts controlled by opposition parties.
那造成不当的后果,回过头来得由政府自行承担,所以说明canceled projects的确是出于预算考量不知道是我过度推理,还是加了自己的想法下去,还是哪里不对呢???
| 欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/) | Powered by Discuz! X3.3 |