Help me crack a questions please, thanks

ca3ltoys · 发表于 2003-10-16 07:16:00

The governor claims that the state faces a drought and has implemented new water-use restricitions; but that's just a move to get some free publicity for his reelection campaign. so far this year we have had 3.5 inches of rain, slightly more than the average amount of rain for the same period over the last three years.

Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the conclusion of the argument above?

(A) The governor did not declare drought emergencies in the precious three years
(B) City officials who have the authority to mandate water-use restrictions have not done so.
(C) The snowmelt that usually contributes significantly to the state's reservoirs is several inches below normal.
(D) The amount of water the state can draw from rivers that cross state boundaries is limited by federal law.
(E) Water-use restrictions are short-term measures and do little to reduce long-term water consumption.

Tell me your idea on how to crack this question please. Thanks

dorbear · 发表于 2003-10-16 11:27:00

The Answer is (C). Where does it come from, gre, gmat or lsat?

C is the only one that make wakens the position of the critics that the water scarce is not the real reason for the governor's water-use restriction. Any questions?

SnowyDay · 发表于 2003-10-16 14:53:00

同意C。
题目意指该措施只是政治作秀，并无实际需求－－今天的降雨（不是降水量哦）比原来还多呢，为什么要限用？
可C中提到融雪－－这是影响降水量的一大因素。比如今天雨量50，可雪水只有10，一共才60；去年雨40，雪倒有50，那就90了。

ca3ltoys · 发表于 2003-10-20 03:20:00

thanks

Help me crack a questions please, thanks

Help me crack a questions please, thanks

所属分类: GMAT考试

正在浏览此版块的会员 ()

浏览过的版块