GWD-2-32 求助各位大侠!

Press secretary: Our critics claim that the President’s recent highway project cancellations demonstrate a vindictive desire to punish legislative districts controlled by opposition parties. They offer as evidence the fact that 90% of the projects cancelled were in such districts. But all of the cancelled projects had been identified as wasteful in a report written by respected nonpartisan auditors. So the President’s choice was clearly motivated by sound budgetary policy, not partisan politics.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the press secretary’s argument depends?

A.     Canceling highway projects was not the only way for the President to punish legislative districts controlled by opposition parties.

B.     The scheduled highway projects identified as wasteful in the report were not mostly projects in districts controlled by the President’s party.

C.     The number of projects cancelled was a significant proportion of all the highway projects that were to be undertaken by the government in the near future.

D.    (Omitted)

E.     Reports by nonpartisan auditors are not generally regarded by the opposition parties as a source of objective assessment of government projects.

答案是B,可我怎么觉得是E呢? 请各位大侠帮忙! 谢谢了!

I'm not a 高手 here.

if the projects identified as wasteful in the report were well selected by the President’s party, the report written by so-called respected nonpartisan auditors is obviously foul up. This is what B means.

谢谢诸位的关注! 还是有些不明白:

二楼说E是削弱,我觉得似乎不对,E中的意思是说"...报告没有被反对党认为是对政府项目的有目的性的评估", 也就是说,该人的报告是公正的,这应该是支持原文得出总统是公正的立场.

我的疑惑就是,E的内容也可以说是上述论述的前提(假设)啊...

B中的内容, 其实就是把原文中" 被取消的项目中的90%都在反对党所在区域", 换个说法又说了一遍, 这可以算是SUPPORT项,但怎么能算是ASSUMPTION呢?

请帮助指正...

Press secretary: Our critics claim that the President’s recent highway project cancellations demonstrate a vindictive desire to punish legislative districts controlled by opposition parties. They offer as evidence the fact that 90% of the projects cancelled were in such districts. But all of the cancelled projects had been identified as wasteful in a report written by respected nonpartisan auditors. So the President’s choice was clearly motivated by sound budgetary policy, not partisan politics.

我昨天看这道题还是比较迷糊，今天似乎比较清楚，个人观点仅供参考。原文说President’s recent highway project cancellations demonstrate a vindictive desire to punish legislative districts controlled by opposition parties是以工程所在的位置为前提的，后来So the President’s choice was clearly motivated by sound budgetary policy, not partisan politics. 是以整个工程wasteful 为前提，假设应该把90% 与wasteful 连接起来NOT+WEAKEN，否则最后的结论无意义。E答案REPORTS是在CACELLATION后才有的，是否被regarded 不重要，可以说是个无关选项，该题和另外的PARTY的态度根本无关

IfB is NOT ture, i.e. "most of the projects identified as wasteful by thereport are in the districts of President's party", and if Presidentcancel projects based on soundbudgetary policy as claimed, then most of the projects cancelled shouldbe in President party's districts, not what happened -- 90% inopposition's districts.  Therefore, B is an necessary assumptionof the argument.

OG里讲道作assumption的思路，总是反过来说如果不这样，那么就不成立。这个题也一样，如果已经开工的但是也还是被认为是浪费资源的项目的大多数都是主席管辖的，那么这个审核官员就是不公正的。要说明审核

官员的非党性，那么这个前提就必须成立。

个人意见。

啊! 总算弄明白了! 我弄错了"objective"的意思,以为是"有目的性的",刚好和"客观的"相反.而且B选项的scheduled projects的意思也没反应出来,使对B的意思没有看出来. 看来阅读理解能力还需要好好提高啊!

非常感谢大家的帮助!!!!真喜欢这里!!!