LSAT-23-2-6

6.     Legislator: Your agency is responsible for regulating an industry shaken by severe scandals. You were given funds to hire 500 investigators to examine the scandals, but you hired no more than 400. I am forced to conclude that you purposely limited hiring in an attempt to prevent the full extent of the scandals from being revealed.

Regulator: We tried to hire the 500 investigators but the starting salaries for these positions had been frozen so low by the legislature that it was impossible to attract enough qualified applicants.

The regulator responds to the legislator’s criticism by

(A) shifting the blame for the scandals to the legislature

(B) providing information that challenges the conclusion drawn by legislator

(C) claiming that compliance with the legislature’s mandate would have been an insufficient response

(D) rephrasing the legislator’s conclusion in terms more favorable to the regulator（B）

(E) showing that the legislator’s statements are self contradictory

C 要如何排除 ? 谢谢!!

感谢 流沙mm

但顺从legislature 的话it was impossible to attract enough qualified applicants. 不就是 an insufficient response不足的反应 (不足以吸引人来)??

还是不太懂 C 要如何排除？

我觉得BC力道差不多阿??

我的理解是Regulator并没有直接抱怨什么，而是提出另外的信息说明不是因为他们不想准确报告结果，而是因为经费问题，从而反对了上面的结论。

B中的provide information刚好符合了他的论证方法。

C这句话我一直觉得很拗口，不知道怎么翻译才合适。而且我觉得如果Regulator直接说，譬如“你的这个说方不充分”才更符合claim的含义。

有哪位高人来详细说说更好了

1。C只说了R的后半部分，前面部分（我们企图去HIRE500调查者）没说。C没有涵盖R说话的全部内容，反映不了R对L批评的回答的全部内容

2。更关键的是RESPOND题是问推理方法，即如何推出结论。B说是用提供另外信息的方法得出结论：怀疑L的结论。C并没说出用何方法。

thanks, lawyer , 流沙

我知道了  C只是说了R的方法 而不是针对L的批评的回应