标题: 求助reasoning！！9.14 [打印本页] 作者: lihaolan 时间: 2012-9-14 17:32 标题: 求助reasoning！！9.14 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
我不明白问题说啥。。KEY B能不能帮我分析下！！！B怎么和文章对应。特别是IF the first proves unsatisfactory!!.哪里能够看出。文章只是说拆了更好的效果！！文章也不很清楚！！谢谢了作者: s_dUSA 时间: 2012-9-15 00:40
Let me take a wack at it:
A: IF NO THREAT, then the action should be taken, but we only know that there is threat, so what is going to happen, do not take the action? who the hell know
B: take one action that will not prevent another action: if we take A, then the house will be gone, so there is no way we are going to take plan B, but if we take plan B, if it sucks, we can still change to plan A, so according to this piece of adivce, we should choose B right now. Bingo!
C: if no fund secured, take the one without fund, we know the fund has been established, so this principle is dead, because the sufficient condition has been killed, we do not know what is gonna happen
D: bascally, this one tells us that we should not take any plan at all right now, because we need to investigae every possibility before we take action
E: this one tells us that we should not take A only because of mass support. But should we take B? only jesus knows