涛涛GWD2-32

Q32:

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 percent of the projects canceled were in such districts.  But all of the canceled 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?

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

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

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

4. The highway projects canceled in districts controlled by the President’s party were not generally more expensive than the projects canceled in districts controlled by opposition parties
5. Reports by nonpartisan auditors are not generally regarded by the opposition parties as a source of objective assessments of government projects

答案是B,B仅仅是重复了题目,也能算assumption?但其他的似乎也没关系

不是重复，事实是 the fact that 90 percent of the projects canceled were in such districts. 

而发言人说：all of the canceled projects had been identified as wasteful in a report written by respected nonpartisan auditors.

结论是：So the President’s choice was clearly motivated by sound budgetary policy, not partisan politics.

其中President’s choice 就是90% cancellations in other districts，为了完整发言人的逻辑链，就要将90% cancellations in other districts和a report written by respected nonpartisan auditors.联系起来

绛紫

这里有个关键性的概念区别：
    

projects cancelled 和wasteful cancelled是两个不同的概念。题目说“取消的90%是反对党控制区的的”，如果B取非，就是“浪费中的大多数是总统党派控制区的”，把两个一合并，新闻秘书的发言就有问题了，既然被证明是浪费的计划大多数是总统派的，那为什么取消的90%却是反对派的呢（言外之意，如果大多数浪费的计划都在总统控制区，那么取消的90%也应该在总统控制区，而不是在反对派控制区，这样才能证明是客观的啊）所以削弱了结论，B为假设。
    

用前人经典的观点就是：projects cancelled 和wasteful cancelled之间有个gap，假设就是把这个填上，正常的逻辑就是：浪费的多，取消的也应该多，不论是在哪个党派的控制区，这样才能体现公平。下面有个链接，可以看看。
    

http://forum.chasedream.com/dispbbs.asp?BoardID=24&ID=57708