请教两道logic reasoning题

chasingd2012

1、In Australia the population that is of driving age has grown larger over the last five years, but the annual number of traffic fatalities has declined. This lead to the conclusion that, overall, the driving-age population of Australia consists of more skillful drivers now than five years ago.

Each of the statements below, if true, weakens the argument except:

A. Three years ago, a mandatory seat-belt law went into effect throughout Australia.

B. Five years ago, Australia began a major road repair project.

C. Because of increases in the price of fuel, Australians on average drive less each year than in the preceding year.

D. The number of hospital emergency facilities in Australia has doubled in the last five years.

E. In response to an increase in traffic fatalities, Australia instituted a program of mandatory driver education five years ago.

正确答案是E，但感觉这个也可以weaken. 求解释。。？

2、Letter to the editor: After Baerton's factory closed, there was a sharp increase in the number of claims filed for job-related injury compensation by the factory's former employees. Hence there is reason to believe that most of those who filed for compensation after the factory closed were just out to gain benefits they didn't deserve, and filed only to help them weather their job loss.

Each of the following, if true, weakens the argument above except:

A. Workers cannot file for compensation for many job-related injuries, such as hearing loss from factory noise, until they have left the job.

B. In the years before the factory closed, the factory's managers dismissed several employees who had filed injury claims.

C. Most workers who receive an injury on the job file for compensation on the day they suffer the injury.

D. Workers who incur partial disabilities due to injuries on the job often do not file for compensation because they would have to stop working to receive compensation but cannot afford to live on that compensation alone.

E. Workers who are aware that they will soon be laid off from a job often become depressed, making them more prone to job-related injuries.

正确答案是C. 但不太明白，是否可以将C项理解成大部分工人是在受伤时而不是工厂关闭时file claim的（即使工厂关闭时claim的数量有所增加，但不代表是大部分）。这样理解的话似乎C也可以weaken? （是不是引申的太多了？）另外B项的意思是说一些工人从前file过claim但被拒绝所以现在再file一次吗？但这层意思好像也有引申的成分？

Thanks~~!

weather1984115

算吧，因为point不在是不是工厂关闭那天，就算c选项说的他们在工厂关闭那天申请的，也是无关选项。因为原文的结论是在讨论很多工人是不是贪图赔偿才故意去申请的，你应该围绕这个方向来思考。而c选项的主题是工人在哪一天申请，因此不管他们在哪一天申请，都是跑题了，都是out of scope，所以你压根就不用去思考是不是因为不是说的工厂关闭那天。

chasingd2012

那进一步再问一下，第二题如果把c项中的"the day they suffer the injury"理解成不是工厂关闭这天，那是不是就过分延伸了？

weather1984115

1 abcd都weaken是因为提出了原文中没有考虑到的原因，原文说只是因为skilled的人变多了，但是abcd都提出了交通变好的其他因素。而E它说5年前就强制让他们学课程了，那么确实是让skilled的人多了，是strengthen了.
2 c是说的工人一般在什么时候提出申请赔偿，与原文结论没有关系。不是大多数的问题，是out of scope了。
但是b的意思是以前有过先例，申请赔偿会被开除，那么就没人敢申请了，但是工厂倒闭，就敢申请了。所以提出了另一种解释，weaken了。