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 recent report determined that although only 3 percent of drivers on Maryland highways equipment 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 detecters are more likely to exceed the speed limit regularly than are drivers who do not.
the conclusion drawn above depends on which of the assumotions?
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 likely to exceed the speed limit reguarly 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 vehicels that were ticketed for exceeding the speed limit wre located more than once in the time period covered by the report. E Drivers on Maryland highways exceeded the speed limit more often than diDd drivers on other state highways not covered in the report
首先我支持B选项可以说明问题,是符合题意的。但是请问A选项错在哪里呢?
如果说装了雷达的车更不容易因为超速而吃罚单,那结合题中条件,装了雷达的车吃了更多罚单,不是更应该证明装了雷达的车超速的次数比不装的车多得多么? OG的解释是这个选项针对吃罚单的问题可能是真的,但与题中关于经常超速的问题不相关。我怎么觉得这个解释有点牵强呢?因为选项明明说的是are less likely to be ticketed for exceeding the speed limit,不是已经和超速联系起来了么?难道就是因为没有明确说在“相同次数”的超速情况下不容易吃罚单么?我怎么觉得这个思维还是不对呢?
A选项其实也可以推出来结论 does not make A necessary for the argument to hold. Only if when negating A makes the argument fall apart, A is necessary for the argument.