求助prep1-41

41.   (32917-!-item-!-188;#058&006462)

In the two years following the unification of Germany in 1989, the number of cars owned by residents of East Germany and the total distance traveled by cars in East Germany both increased by about 40 percent.  In those two years, however, the number of East German residents killed each year as car occupants in traffic accidents increased by about 300 percent.

Which of the following, if true, most helps to explain the disproportionate increase in traffic fatalities?

(A) The average number of passengers per car was higher in the years before unification than it was in the two years after.

(B) After unification, many people who had been living in East Germany relocated to West Germany.

(C) After unification, a smaller proportion of the cars being purchased by East German residents were used vehicles.

(D) Drivers who had driven little or not at all before 1989 accounted for much of the increase in the total distance traveled by cars.

(E) Over the same two-year period in East Germany, other road users, such as motorcyclists, bicyclists, and pedestrians, experienced only small increases in traffic fatalities.

不明白为什么选D

原文要求解释的就是一个数字的差异，新车增加了40%，但是事故增加了300%

如果增加的新车的车主都是新司机，那肯定危险系数就比较大了。：）D的意思。

需要一个条件使得相差悬殊的数据能够在理论上衔接。

说明之前的evidence都是正确的。

因此使用里面的主要名词the owners and distance，可以推出选项中均存在这两个名词或者同意词并说明之间关系的答案就是正确的。

个人愚见。

想請問 那A不可以嗎?

(A) The average number of passengers per car was higher in the years before unification than it was in the two years after.

車上的人 平均變多了 不是表示說 萬一出事 也多一點人受傷嘛?

以下是引用ilovecushi在2007-10-21 14:12:00的发言：

想請問 那A不可以嗎?

(A) The average number of passengers per car was higher in the years before unification than it was in the two years after.

車上的人 平均變多了 不是表示說 萬一出事 也多一點人受傷嘛?

理解错了  是德国统一前车上的人多

I wrongly understood the meaning of A either

疑问啊~关于新手是否危险系数就大不是需要进一步推导的吗？并不能因为是新手就危险系数大啊。

逻辑不是要求一步到位吗？我怎么总是觉得这个需要自己进行推导啊？

请求帮助啊

同问！