标题: 还是weaken对象的问题--大全D-13.抛砖吧砸鸡蛋吧下雨收衣服啦~ [打印本页] 作者: ellie78 时间: 2010-5-6 21:36 标题: 还是weaken对象的问题--大全D-13.抛砖吧砸鸡蛋吧下雨收衣服啦~ Since the passage of the state’s Clean Air Act ten years ago, the level of industrial pollutants in the air has fallen by an average of 18 percent. This suggests that the restrictions on industry embodied in the act have worked effectively. However, during the same period the state has also suffered through a period of economic decline. The number of businesses in the state has fallen by 10 percent, and the number of workers employed has fallen by 12 percent. It is probable that the business decline, rather than the regulations in the act, is responsible for at least half of the decline in the pollution. 问：Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the conclusion drawn in the passage above? (A) During the last ten years, economic conditions in the nation as a whole have been worse than those within the state. (B) Amendments to the Clean Air Act that were enacted six years ago have substantially strengthened its restrictions on industrial air pollution. (C) Of the businesses that ceased operating in the state during the last ten years, only 5 percent were engaged in air-polluting industries. (D) Several large corporations left the state during the last ten years partly in order to avoid compliance with the Clean Air Act. (E) Due to its small budget, the state office charged with enforcement of the Clean Air Act has prosecuted only two violators of the law since its passage. 论点说，法令出台后，空气变好了。但是我们不认为空气变好是法令带来的，（抛出他因：）是本地企业变少导致污染减少。 我是这样weaken的：企业变少是由法令带来的，选了D
但是正选是C。
盼指点~作者: jtrchina 时间: 2010-5-6 22:01
When encouner such assumption issues,keep 3 major parts of logic in mind and just fill them up: Evidence: 1.pollutants decreased sharply,18% 2.10% of the corporations bankrupted Assumption:To be filled up by choices Conclusion: It is not the appeal to the ACT low but the mass bankruption that takes the responlities for at lesat half decrease in pollution. That means,the bankruption accounts for at least 9% of the total decrease.
Above is what you should write in mind while reading the passage. Since you have no problem with a,b,e,let's move on to c and d: C:It directly attacks the conclusionnly 5%,not at least 9%,of decrease attributes to the bankruptions. D:It is out of scope because such "Several large corporations" are not mentioned to make pollutions.It highly possible that they are green corporations. Anyway,choice (D) doesn't tell you such info.And actually,choice (D) does not weaken the conclusion since if such large coporations created pollutions and left,then the conclusion is strengthened that the mass bankruption that takes the responlities for at lesat half decrease in pollution.D increaces such incidence and that's why it is dead. Hope it helps!作者: ellie78 时间: 2010-5-6 22:06
thanks very much！I get it~
nly 5%,not at least 9%,of decrease attributes to the bankruptions.