from manhattan http://www.manhattangmat.com/forums/radio-stations-with-radio-t3196.html here's a diagram for this argument: (# of rds-equipped stations increased 250-->600) BUT (apprx same # of rds radios in Vland) THEREFORE (apprx same # of people receiving rds signals in Vland) if you make this diagram, it should be clear that there's a logical leap between the latter two statements: the author is assuming a direct correlation between the # of rds-equipped radios and the # of people who actually receive rds signals with those radios. in order to make this connection, you need to assume that nobody, or almost nobody**, with an rds-equipped radio is now (in '96, that is) able to receive a signal but wasn't able to receive a signal back in '94. that's pretty much what (a) says. **the reason 'almost nobody' is ok is because the passage hedges its bets by speaking in approximations: 'about the same', 'did not increase significantly'. this is the source of the 'few if any' at the beginning of choice (a). had the passage spoken in more absolute terms - 'the same', 'did not increase' (i.e., at all), then you'd have to replace 'few if any' with 'none'. -- by 会员 HerringtonD (2012/10/24 12:53:35)
3Q ~~ |