一道很头疼的LR题

taoransk · 发表于 2010-10-26 17:56:51

Editorialist: Some people argue that highway speed limits should be increased to reflect the actual average speeds of highway drivers, which are currently 10 to 20 percent higher than posted speed limits. Any such increase would greatly decrease highway safety, however; as past experience teaches, higher average highway speeds would result, since even though most drivers who currently violate posted speed limits would ovey higher ones, almost all drivers who obey current speed limits would likely increase their speed.

Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the editorialist's argument?

(A) Some drivers who obey current speed limits would not change their speed after the introduction of the new speed limits
(B) Uniformity of speeds among vehicles is more important for highway safety than is a low average highway speed.
(C) Most drivers who drive 10 to 20 percent faster than current speed limits have never been involved in a highway accident
(D) Some drivers who violate current speed limits would also violate higher speed limits
(E) Most drivers who violate current speed limits determine their speeds by what they believe to be safe in the situation

答案是B, Kaplan的解释是:
The editorialist concludes that a speed-limit increase would decrease safety. The editoralist says this would happen because increasing the limit would lead to faster average traffice speeds, since most people would either keep driving fast, or would speed up to the new limit (and maybe beyond). But the overall effect would be to have traffic moving at a more uniform speed. If this improves safety, the editoralist's comclusion falls apart, and thus choice (B) substantially weakens the argument.

问题在于,这题干的前提和结论到底应该怎么样理解?谁能用中文结构翻译下?话说我英文可以了....但是看这题仍然有够头晕的说.

Any such increase would greatly decrease highway safety, however; aspast experience teaches, higher average highway speeds would result,since...

因为这里都是分号和逗号,我断句出了问题.....
1. 那个However到底是针对第一句,还是中间那个结论,还是别的什么,比如就一个语气?
2. 这个到底是前提还是结果啊? 是说标定提高会带来更高的均速,还是说更高均速会带来后续句子里的结果?

部分人超速,部分人遵守或低于标定 --> 实际均速高于标定 (假设全部人遵守或低于标定)
但是: 提高标定后, 原超速者会保持原速(现在在标定内), 原遵守者会提速至标定(或超出) --> 结果: 新的均速上升
结论: 提高标定有助于减少事故率

Uniformity of speeds among vehicles is more important for highway safety than is a low average highway speed.
正确答案补充削弱前提: 对高速公路安全来说, 车辆间的均速比低平均速更重要??? ...than is a low average ... 这个是什么意思?

memoryxiang · 发表于 2010-10-30 06:19:37

Editorialist: Some people argue that highway speed limits should be increased to reflect the actual average speeds of highway drivers, which are currently 10 to 20 percent higher than posted speed limits. Any such increase would greatly decrease highway safety, however;这句是结论，however是这句话中的连接词 as past experience teaches, higher average highway speeds would result, since even though most drivers who currently violate posted speed limits would obey higher ones, almost all drivers who obey current speed limits would likely increase their speed.
第一句话evidence1：高速路限速应当提高。
第二句话前半句，conclusion：然而任何速度的提高都会导致高速路安全系数降低。
第二句话后半句，evidence2：过去的经验证明高速路均速提高会导致几乎所有司机都会提高车速。
所以，整个argument的逻辑就是高速安全下降是由于车速/限速/均速提高。能减弱argument的答案自然是车速提高并不是告诉安全下降的原因，所以答案是B。
the best way to weaken an argument is either to undermine a central assumption or to provide an alternative explanation for the conclusion------form Kplan.
hope this helps. good luck

taoransk · 发表于 2010-11-1 09:32:18

非常感谢~

-.-回答了不少问题,不过自己问题被解答还是第一次呢哈哈...论坛人气很缺乏啊......

虽然遇到相同题目到时候还是得错,不过至少这次搞明白了....

吐糟一下,刚做到2000后的题了......发现LSAT进入新千年每篇真题越来越喜欢玩弄美式口语和俚语,常用词汇的边缘含义,以及超长组合倒装句........如果按这个进度下去估计就快到我人力不可抗拒的界限了-.-

一道很头疼的LR题

所属分类: 法学院申请

正在浏览此版块的会员 ()