求助：PP2 CR 77(30553-!-item-!-188;#058&005527)

innerwarrior

77.   (30553-!-item-!-188;#058&005527)

Citizensof Parktown are worried by the increased frequency of serious crimes committedby local teenagers.  In response, thecity government has instituted a series of measures designed to keep teenagersat home in the late evening.  Even if themeasures succeed in keeping teenagers at home, however, they are unlikely toaffect the problem that concerns citizens, since most crimes committed by localteenagers take place between 3 p.m. and 6 p.m.
Whichof the following, if true, most substantially weakens the argument?
A.Similar measures adopted in other places have failed to reduce the number ofteenagers on the streets in the late evening.
B.The crimes committed by teenagers in the afternoon are mostly small thefts andinconsequential vandalism.
C.Teenagers are much less likely to commit serious crimes when they are at homethan when they are not at home.
D.Any decrease in the need for police patrols in the late evening would not meanthat there could be more intensive patrolling in the afternoon.
E. The schools in Parktownhave introduced a number of after-school programs that will be available toteenagers until 6 p.m. on weekday afternoons.

答案是B，但怎么想也想不明白。
原文说青少年犯罪率高，政府打算制定一系列政策让孩子晚上待家里。但作者觉得没用，因为这些犯罪都发生在下午3点-6点。问驳斥
选项B是说青少年犯罪都是偷窃和没道理的破坏。

这个我觉得是无关啊。。。

innerwarrior

明白了！谢谢愁予！

愁予

原文第一句话就说了“serious crimes“ ，这个是题眼，原文的逻辑是：大部分青少年“犯罪”都发生在下午，所以晚上禁止晚上出去对减少青少年“严重犯罪”没有用。很明显，逻辑错误就是“犯罪”和“严重犯罪”概念不清。
B的意思是说虽然大部分青少年犯罪发生在下午，但是下午的犯罪都是非严重犯罪，所以严重犯罪是发生在晚上的，禁止青少年晚上出去对于解决serious crimes是有用的。

innerwarrior

木有人吗？～

innerwarrior

谢谢beeluck的回复
但是我不知道理解是不是有问题。
我觉得B的话，并没有说：采用政策后有减轻犯罪程度的作用。这个选项是在说政府的行为的结果吗？

我的想法是：政府打算这么干，有人跳出来反对，说这么干没用。
选项说其实也没那么严重，都是些小偷小摸。但这个，如果不是结果的话，其实也是驳斥政府的行为，因为把孩子关家里同样也没用呀。

谢谢

beeluck

作者认为上述政策没用，那weaken就要找能证明政策有点用的证据
B项说青年下午的犯罪主要是一些小偷小摸，相比于原来serious crimes，已经表示采用政策后有减轻犯罪程度的作用了
从而从而达到weaken的效果