问lsat-9-1-20 的B（LSAT 区上没人答所以我...）

lsat-9-1-20
Saunders: Everyone at last week’s neighborhood association meeting agreed that the row of abandoned and vandalized houses on Cariton Street posed a threat to the safety of our neighborhood. Moreover, no one now disputes that getting the houses torn down eliminated that threat. Some people tried to argue that it was unnecessary to demolish what they claimed were basically sound buildings, since the city had established a fund to help people in need of housing buy and rehabilitate such buildings. The overwhelming success of the demolition strategy, however, proves that the majority, who favored demolition, were right and that those who claimed that the problem could and should be solved by rehabilitating the houses were wrong.

20. Which one of the following principles, if established would determine that demolishing the houses was the right decision or instead would determine that the proposal advocated by the opponents of demolition should have been adopted?

(A) When what to do about an abandoned neighborhood building is in dispute, the course of action that would result in the most housing for people who need it should be the one adopted unless the building is believed to pose a threat to neighborhood safety.

(B) When there are two proposals for solving a neighborhood problem, and only one of them would preclude the possibility of trying the other approach if the first proves unsatisfactory, then the approach that does not foreclose the other possibility should be the one adopted.

(C) If one of two proposals for renovating vacant neighborhood buildings requires government funding whereas the second does not, the second proposal should be the one adopted unless the necessary government funds have already been secured.

(D) No pain for eliminating a neighborhood problem that requires demolishing basically sound houses should be carried out until all other possible alternatives have been thoroughly investigated.

(E) No proposal for dealing with a threat to a neighborhood’s safety should be adopted merely because a majority of the residents of that neighborhood prefer that proposal to a particular counterproposal.

A是错的我承认，但正确答案的B我觉得也有问题

B不看时间状语的时候绝对与题目要求背道而驰，即使考虑了时间状语也不确定

有NN这么说：“

而B虽然刚开始一看，好象也和A差不多，就支持应该先修复房屋，不应该推倒它。
可是在B中有一个条件语句：if the first proves unsatisfactory。
也就是说，如果也有可能推倒房屋这个建议也是可行的，因为题目中已经用过去的例子说明了第一个建议更好。

所以B可以满足题目的问题，既是double-sword这种，感觉和evaluation的题目差不多。”

条件句是在句子“and only one of them would preclude the possibility of trying the other approach if the first proves unsatisfactory”中，我理解为：如果第一个方法（推倒）证明不恰当，它会防止第二种方法（维修）的实施的这么一种方法。这样的话，如果推倒是不恰当的，它当然就不可能再维修，所以要维修。如果推倒是恰当（条件不成立，句子逻辑失败），那么最多说明以上判断方法不可行，还是无法说明到底要用哪种方法。

大家都不屑于回答LSAT的题吗？

B) When there are two proposals for solving a neighborhood problem, and only one of them would preclude the possibility of trying the other approach if the first proves unsatisfactory, then the approach that does not foreclose the other possibility should be the one adopted. 猫王啊，先翻译吧。

解决邻里的纷争，如果有两个方案，而且只有其中一个能排除这种可能性---如果第一个证明是失败的，还可以尝试另外一个。那么，不排除其他可能性的那个方案应该被选。这里边推倒房屋的方案派出了另一种可能性，所以只能选住人， 假如不成功，才可以倒掉。