OG-171 选项B是原推理的假设吗？想不通！

A recent report determined that although only 3 percent of drivers on Maryland highways equipped their vehicles with radar detectors, 33 percent of all vehicles ticketed for exceeding the speed limit were equipped with them. Clearly, drivers who equip their vehicles with radar detectors are more likely to exceed the speed limit regularly than are drivers who do not.

The conclusion drawn above depends on which of the following assumptions?

(A) Drivers who equip their vehicles with radar detectors are less likely to be ticketed for exceeding the speed limit than are drivers who do not.

(B) Drivers who are ticketed for exceeding the speed limit are more likely to exceed the speed limit regularly than are drivers who are not ticketed.

(C) The number of vehicles that were ticketed for exceeding the speed limit was greater than the number of vehicles that were equipped with radar detectors.

(D) Many of the vehicles that were ticketed for exceeding the speed limit were ticketed more than once in the time period covered by the report.

(E) Drivers on Maryland highways exceeded the speed limit more often than did drivers on other state highways not covered in the report.

(B) 怎么会是假设呢，原推理根本不需要这个呀，需要的应该是（我认为原推理的最重要假设）：安装了radar detector和未安装这些检测器的超速 vehicles都被发现并吃了罚单。

再设计一个weaken：安装了radar detector的vehicle超速都能被发现，而未安装的vehicle在超速时则不易被发现。

大家帮我看看好吗，谢谢。我又错在哪儿了？           

偶对这题的理解是：

结论是关于通常情况下司机的超速，而样本是基于一个特定的范围即超速且吃超速罚单的司机。这样结论就是基于这样一个前提假设：这些样本是具有代表性的，即吃超速罚单的司机是通常超速的人。

这里偶理解的逻辑考点是：

1. 样本比较要具有代表性，即本题的假设内容。

2. 吃罚单的人并不一定是有超速倾向的人，因为吃罚单本身是一个小概率事件。

谢谢LES，我知道我错在哪里了，我看丢了regularly，如果没有regularly，这题就像我说的那样了。Clearly, drivers who equip their vehicles with radar detectors are more likely to exceed the speed limit regularly than are drivers who do not.