ChaseDream
搜索
返回列表 发新帖
查看: 1466|回复: 3
打印 上一主题 下一主题

feifei 45

[复制链接]
楼主
发表于 2009-10-20 17:43:00 | 只看该作者

feifei 45

45. Commissioner: Budget forecasters project a revenue shortfall of a billion dollars in the coming fiscal year. Since there is no feasible way to increase the available funds, our only choice is to decrease expenditures. The plan before you outlines feasible cuts that would yield savings of a billion dollars over the coming fiscal year. We will be able to solve the problem we face, therefore, only if we adopt this plan.

This reasoning in the commissioner’s argument is flawed because this argument

(A) relies on information that is far from certain

(B) confuses being an adequate solution with being a required solution

(C) inappropriately relies on the opinions of experts

(D) inappropriately employs language that is vague

(E) takes for granted that there is no way to increase available funds

为什么选B 呢?

我觉得逻辑好难,难过阅读和语法好多,怎么做才能提高?

谢谢大家了~

 

沙发
发表于 2009-10-20 19:48:00 | 只看该作者
这道题我也不明白 我觉得only if是不是有点问题 是不是要改为if only 那就好理解了
板凳
发表于 2009-10-20 20:34:00 | 只看该作者

我没有特别高深的道理,自己的想法如下:

用排除法。A:所有的plan都是不确定的,不合适。C/D是无关选项,干扰的。E:原文已经说确实是没有funding了

地板
发表于 2009-10-20 20:50:00 | 只看该作者
我好想又有些明白了!原文没错,就是因为他用错only if plan,将plan当做有且仅有的办法,所以才不对啊!
您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 立即注册

Mark一下! 看一下! 顶楼主! 感谢分享! 快速回复:

手机版|ChaseDream|GMT+8, 2024-11-23 03:14
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号

ChaseDream 论坛

© 2003-2023 ChaseDream.com. All Rights Reserved.

返回顶部