To prevent some conflicts of interest, Congress could prohibit high-level government officials from accepting positions as lobbyists for three years after such officials leave government service. One such official concluded, however, that such a prohibition would be unfortunate because it would prevent high-level government officials from earning a livelihood for three years.
The official's conclusion logically depends on which of the following assumptions?
理解存在差异。关键看你如何理解这2句话。 prohibit......from....as lobbyists for three years after such officials leave government service. 我认为是:离开工作岗位3年内,禁止OFFCIER做LOBBIST.3年后就能做LOBBIST。 答案E则是:他们现在被允许只能做3年的LOBBIST。同时没说时间是否限制在离岗后3年内。 我考虑下,E解释为反对选项更好。因为: 如果一开始每人只允许做3年LOBBIST,现在政府只限制了离岗后的3年,那离岗后3年后第四年开始又能做3年的LOBBIST,那对于OFFCIER实际上还是3年的LOBBIST,没有那个这个禁令是unfortunat的CONCLUSTION。
The official’s argument does not depend on the assumption in E, since the argument would not be invalidated if former high-level government officials could act as lobbyists indefinitely.
这个if former high-level government officials could act as lobbyists indefinitely. 应该就是对E选项的取非 (E. High-level government officials who leave government service are currently permitted to act as lobbyists for only three years.)
试翻:
The official’s argument没有建立在assumpton E上,因为此argument不会无效,假如高官可以无限制地做lobbyists.