[求解]GWD14-Q2: (CD-9 Q10) 谢谢XDJM们帮助!!

geniealice

GWD14-Q2: （CD-9 Q10）
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.
   

D. 取消的区域中: 10%总统控制区域 一般不更昂贵 比90%反对党区域
   (总统区域比反对党区域都省钱,既然这10%的总统区域都取消了,90%的反对党区域更没有道理不取消? )
E. 无党派的审计报告 一般不被反对当认为是政府项目评估的依据的资源
   (这个是撇清无党派与反对党之间的关系,而证明报告的准确性么??? )


Conclusion: 总统的选择是出于预算考虑, 而非党派政治
取非D, 总统区比反对党区更费钱, 所以??? --- 是不是有点混乱呢...
取非E, 无党派的审计报告也作为反对党的评估, 那么反对党本身就知道自己的区域是wasteful了,
         取消了反对党...那么总统是出于党派政治报复??? --- 我怎么觉得是support原文的conclusion了?!?!


但是又觉得E取非是support了... 虽然我还是挺想选E的, 但不太确定... 而且不知道答案...

wjtwenzi

这个题我的理解是nonpartisan auditors评估了所有的项目，其中有president的，也有opponent的，然后列举了一个wasteful project list，如果这个list里面大多数都是president的项目，那么president的做法就是出于政治目的而不是遵循评估的；如果这个list里面president的项目不占绝大多数，那么可以认为president的做法是遵循了评估而非出于政治目的。

sdcar2010

Necessary assumption. Use negation.

If you negate B, you have "The scheduled highway projects identified as wasteful in the report WERE MOSTLY projects in districts controlled by the President’s party." If this is true, then less than 50% of the projects that are possible candidates for cancellation are in districts controlled by the rival. However, when the dust settles, 90 percent of the projects EVENTUALLY canceled were in legislative districts controlled by opposition party. Clearly we have a problem - politics is involved in the cancellation, and the main conclusion, which says otherwise, falls apart.

Doris_1995

sdcar2010 发表于 2011-6-30 21:09
Necessary assumption. Use negation.If you negate B, you have "The scheduled highway projects identif ...

同意！               

pandrew

wjtwenzi 发表于 2014-5-3 16:54
这个题我的理解是nonpartisan auditors评估了所有的项目，其中有president的，也有opponent的，然后列举了 ...

Mark一下！               

zhaobingd

也可以这样想，文中说了取消的都是错的，还剩下没取消是不是都是正确的方面没说，而不可以说是从这个地方论证了。

xinruiAbby

B选项中说的是 identified wasteful by auditors,如果审计认为大多数projects controlled by president are wasteful 但是president 却cancelled 很少的projects that controlled by his party 就说明他是出于政治目的。个人看法

horsecc

A. Canceling highway projects was not the only way for the President to punish legislative districts controlled by opposition parties. - 削弱了结论
B. The scheduled highway projects identified as wasteful in the report were not mostly projects in districts controlled by the President's party. - 正确 - 如果总统掌握的10%项目被审计为垃圾，而总统并没有取消，那么就证明总统取消90%反对党项目是出于政治目地。这里恰好相反，假设10%的总统项目并非垃圾。从而支持了结论。
C. 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.- 题干没说未来项目 - 不相关
D. 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. - 不相关 (题干没讨论费用问题)
E. Reports by nonpartisan auditors are not generally regarded by the opposition parties as a source of objective assessments of government projects - 政府官员的解释是依据审计报告，而审计报告作为一种客观有效的证据是必须被公认的才能作为其结论的依据。因而，如果反对党不信任审计报告，那么结论是无法被确证的，所以，本答案是削弱了结论。

-- by 会员 xfi883 (2011/7/1 9:40:35)

这个解释不错

jameshzd

Necessary assumption. Use negation.

If you negate B, you have "The scheduled highway projects identified as wasteful in the report WERE MOSTLY projects in districts controlled by the President’s party." If this is true, then less than 50% of the projects that are possible candidates for cancellation are in districts controlled by the rival. However, when the dust settles, 90 percent of the projects EVENTUALLY canceled were in legislative districts controlled by opposition party. Clearly we have a problem - politics is involved in the cancellation, and the main conclusion, which says otherwise, falls apart.

-- by 会员 sdcar2010 (2011/6/30 21:09:45)

这才是正解！！！顶一个！！

geniealice

非常感谢! !!

xfi883

A. Canceling highway projects was not the only way for the President to punish legislative districts controlled by opposition parties. - 削弱了结论
B. The scheduled highway projects identified as wasteful in the report were not mostly projects in districts controlled by the President's party. - 正确 - 如果总统掌握的10%项目被审计为垃圾，而总统并没有取消，那么就证明总统取消90%反对党项目是出于政治目地。这里恰好相反，假设10%的总统项目并非垃圾。从而支持了结论。
C. 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.- 题干没说未来项目 - 不相关
D. 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. - 不相关 (题干没讨论费用问题)
E. Reports by nonpartisan auditors are not generally regarded by the opposition parties as a source of objective assessments of government projects - 政府官员的解释是依据审计报告，而审计报告作为一种客观有效的证据是必须被公认的才能作为其结论的依据。因而，如果反对党不信任审计报告，那么结论是无法被确证的，所以，本答案是削弱了结论。