16. During the Second World War, about 375,000 civilians died in the United States and about 408,000 members of the United States armed forces died overseas. On the basis the those figures, it can be concluded that it was not much more dangerous to be overseas in the armed forces during the Second World War than it was to stay at home as a civilian.
Which of the following would reveal most clearly the absurdity of the conclusion drawn above?
A. Counting deaths among members of the armed forces who served in the United State in addition to deaths among members of the armed forces serving overseas
B. Expressing the difference between the numbers of deaths among civilians and members of the armed forces as a percentage of the total number of deaths
C. Separating deaths caused by accidents during service in the armed forces from deaths caused by combat injuries
D. Comparing death rates per thousand members of each group rather than comparing total numbers of deaths
E. Comparing deaths caused by accidents in the United States to deaths caused by combat in the armed forces。
为什么B选项不对哪？个人感觉他和正确选项D的差别就是D是用正确的思维来揭示文中错误的思维(坛子里有朋友说的“老美式思维”），而B选项是直接指出文中的错误——express difference between number as percentage(我头脑中根深蒂固的“老中式思维”）。
是否我说的是对的哪？还是B选项由表达方面的其他缺陷。
请XDJM帮忙给个说法。谢谢。
标题格式以改，抱歉。
另：那几个讨论我看了。没有关于B的，所以另开了一帖。
这还是我对express理解的偏差：我理解这里express的意思类似treat/consider。
谢谢p2，呵呵，每次都是兄弟来回答我的问题。
唉！又看了一遍B，发现B里说的猪话驴唇不对马嘴，难怪不对：把平民中的死亡人数 和 士兵人数 之间的差异 表示成为 了一个总死亡数的百分数。这都是哪儿干哪儿呀。
我本来以为B是想说：作者在文中错误的把绝对数字（numbers）当作了死亡率（percentage）来作依据，才引出那一系列思维观念的话题，呵呵。p200002兄见谅（四个零，嘿嘿！）！
而且，我试过各种各样的方式，搜索中，短横杠无效，我要是搜索og-，或者大全-，没有返回结果，显示未找到。只好只用题号来搜索，俺不是个饭来张口，衣来伸手地银！
谢谢携隐MM！
| 欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/) | Powered by Discuz! X3.3 |