这是个著名的老贴了,偶是越看越觉得B和E都像,只恨只能选一个答案

GWD-7-Q38:

Journalist:  Well-known businessman Arnold Bergeron has long been popular in the state, and he has often talked about running for governor, but he has never run.  However, we have just learned that Bergeron has fulfilled the financial disclosure requirement for candidacy by submitting a detailed list of his current financial holdings to the election commission.  So, it is very likely that Bergeron will be a candidate for governor this year.

The answer to which of the following questions would be most useful in evaluating the journalist’s argument?

1. Has anybody else who has fulfilled the financial disclosure requirement for the upcoming election reported greater financial holdings than Bergeron?

2. Is submitting a list of holdings the only way to fulfill the election commission’s financial disclosure requirements?

3. Did the information recently obtained by the journalists come directly from the election commission?

4. Have Bergeron’s financial holdings increased in value in recent years?

E.      Had Bergeron also fulfilled the financial disclosure requirements for candidacy before any previous gubernatorial elections?

B为什么不对呢,如果完成这些材料是参选的唯一条件,那A完成了这项条件,肯定是要参选了?

以下是引用zhaoyak7在2006-8-22 17:59:00的发言：

B为什么不对呢,如果完成这些材料是参选的唯一条件,那A完成了这项条件,肯定是要参选了?

 

Is submitting a list of holdings the only way to fulfill the election commission’s financial disclosure requirements?

这句话没说"如果完成这些材料是参选的唯一条件"只是说"完成参选委员会关于financial disclosure 的要求".不是象你说的那样子.

我没有读过你说的那个帖子.不过你再去那里看看,如果有lawyer跟贴的话,你仔细看看,他给的答案差不多都是对的.

此题肯定E。 不管submitting a list of holdings 是不是the only way， 都跟参不参选无关的。
因为submitting a list of holdings 不等于参选。

看到了，明白了。B的错误在于取非不能削弱（ evaluating 应该是双向的，正向加强，反向削弱）。

而E有双向作用：如果他原来也递交了，说明不是真参选（每次都交材料，只是混混玩玩而已），如果原来没交过材料，这次交了，可能这次是来真的了。（偶原来一直在交材料和参选的正向关系上打转，E选项有点搞，转了个弯）。

非常感谢！

B：是不是唯一方式和文章无关

支持E

谢谢各位大侠，偶还是对评价evaluating的作用理解不深入：评价应该是通过对问题的是/否回答对原文分别起到加强/削弱的作用。对无关选项的理解也不够

SIGH、、、、时间无多了，