请问GWD2 一道逻辑题

gmatziyu

Press Secretary:Our critics claim that the President’s recent highway project cancellations demonstrate a vindictive desire to punish legislative districts controlled by opposition parties.They offer as evidence the fact that 90 percent of the projects canceled were in such districts.But all of the canceled projects had been identified as wasteful in a report written by respected nonpartisan auditors.So the President’s choice was clearly motivated by sound budgetary policy, not partisan politics.


Which of the following is an assumption on which the press secretary’s argument depends?

1. Canceling highway projects was not the only way for the President to punish legislative districts controlled by opposition parties.
   
2. The scheduled highway projects identified as wasteful in the report were not mostly projects in districts controlled by the President’s party.
   
3. The number of projects canceled was a significant proportion of all the highway projects that were to be undertaken by the government in the near future.
   
4. The highway projects canceled in districts controlled by the President’s party were not generally more expensive than the projects canceled in districts controlled by opposition parties.
   
5. Reports by nonpartisan auditors are not generally regarded by the opposition parties as a source of objective assessments of government projects.
   

Answer: B
请问这道题目为什么是B呢？谢谢

gmatziyu

谢谢hughlv黑侠。!我觉得你的分析是正确的。。可是，选项b好像不是这个意思啊。。选项b好像说的是，被取消掉的项目大部分都不是总统的政党所管的项目，我感觉这个好像不是前提，而是weaken。。。请指教...

hughlv

这道题我记得当年被讨论得天翻地覆,当时我也被搞得一头糨糊（记得当时做错掉了）.但现在看起来却突然觉得比较清晰,谢谢lz把它翻出来给我们重温。

推理过程：Fact: 90%的项目撤销针对反对党行政区内的项目 --> Evidence: 这些项目都被中立机构认为应撤销 --> Conclusion: 总统的决策是恰当的。

这个推理有一个问题就是：假如双方管理的行政区各有10个项目被中立机构认为应撤销，而总统的决策是反对党的10个里撤掉9个，而执政党的10个里只撤掉一个，很显然这样子有偏袒的迹象。因此，双方被撤销的比例应基本相等，即反对党相应的项目组应大于执政党的数目。对应于B选项（虽然它的描述更保守些）。