请教：大全－4－16

ljhljh · 发表于 2005-1-25 00:54:00

During the Second World War, about 375,000 civilians died in the United States and about 408,000 members of the United States armed forces died overseas. On the basis of those figures, it can be concluded that it was not much more dangerous to be overseas in the armed forces during the Second World War than it was to stay at home as a civilian.

Which of the following would reveal most clearly the absurdity of the conclusion drawn above?

(A) Counting deaths among members of the armed forces who served in the United States in addition to deaths among members of the armed forces serving overseas

(B) Expressing the difference between the numbers of deaths among civilians and members of the armed forces as a percentage of the total number of deaths

(C) Separating deaths caused by accidents during service in the armed forces from deaths caused by combat injuries

(D) Comparing death rates per thousand members of each group rather than comparing total numbers of deaths（D）

(E) Comparing deaths caused by accidents in the United States to deaths caused by combat in the armed forces

ljhljh · 发表于 2005-1-25 00:55:00

答案是 D 。但是文中哪里提到rate这个问题了？望指教

annadai · 发表于 2005-1-25 04:13:00

If the number of the people at home is 1 million times of that of thoseoverseas, the death rate will much lower at home, therefore, itis safer at home. So the conclusion in this statment will beridiculous, or wrong.

ljhljh · 发表于 2005-1-25 04:59:00

啊，我把题目看错了，我以为是“作者在推理的时候犯了以下哪条错误”，而题目是说“以下哪种做法可以推翻原文的结论”。。。

不过annadai，你的解释也很清晰啊，谢谢了

请教：大全－4－16