请教og－18题

18.

A proposed ordinance requires the installation in new homes of sprinklers automatically triggered by the presence of a fire. However, a home builder argued that because more than ninety percent of residential fires are extinguished by a household member, residential sprinklers would only marginally decrease property damage caused by residential fires.

Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the home builder’s argument?

A. most individuals have no formal training in how to extinguish fires.

B. Since new homes are only a tiny percentage of available housing in the city, the new ordinance would be extremely narrow in scope.

C. The installation of smoke detectors in new residences costs significantly less than the installation of sprinklers.

D. In the city where the ordinance was proposed, the average time required by the fire department to respond to a fire was less than the national average.

E. The largest proportion of property damage that results from residential fires is caused by fires that start when no household member is present.

开始以为however之后的是结论部分，但是仔细看看觉得however之前是结论。大家觉得呢？

我对题目的理解是：home builder认为，因为90%的火都是由家庭成员扑灭的，所以sprinklers只能在很小程度上降底火灾引起的财产损失。

e：最大比例的财产损失是因为最初着火的时候家里没有人

我怎么觉得e是加强不是消弱，55555，好困惑的说，谁知道的话，给解释解释，og的解释我看了半天也不明白。

题目不是写得很清楚home builder argued......这个当然是结论了

楼上mm的困惑在于，到底加强谁削弱谁，题目说的是削弱home builder's arguement，也就是说削弱不安装，所以E当之无愧啦

看题目的时候一定要看清楚到底weaken/strength who，这个WHO一般都在前面有具体替代的，找到替代就可以了

谢谢

请教一下, E中并没有指明house with largest proportion of property damage装没有装sprinkler,如果已经装了,还依然有这么多损失, 那么E根本不可能起到weaken的作用啊?

嗬嗬，楼上考虑太多了，你可以认为以前不是强制性的，所以有的装了有的没装

现在强制性安装，应该会有好的效果的

这里只要说加装淋喷是好的，重要的，必须的

E说了家里没人的时候，造成大量财产损失，所以是必须装的

结论是不要装

所以weaken了