一道外国网站看到的CR题，不是很懂一个选项的解释，希望谁来给翻译一下

DesmondWang

Years ago, some in the government's intelligence community feared the work of telecommunications researchers at then-emerging private security firms. The government experts concluded that these private firms posed the biggest risk to successful government espionage. As the private security firms began publicly releasing and advertising encryption algorithms and other security products, these government experts saw support for their conclusion when an encryption algorithm that government experts could not break began appearing in countless emails.
Which of the following, if true, most weakens the conclusion of the government experts referred to above?
A)  Shortly before the government experts reached their conclusions, two private security companies each claimed to have developed "the world's strongest email encryption algorithm"
B)  The private security firms' decision to advertise their products and sell them publicly led to other members of the private sector and academia scrutinizing the encryption algorithms.
C)  An open-source encryption algorithm, developed by an academic and freely available from popular websites, is recognized by numerous ex-government code breakers as the most unbreakable algorithm ever developed.
D)  An enemy government recently succeeded in placing a spy within the government espionage operations referred to above.
E)  To strengthen the reputation of the private security firms, employees of these firms publish information about the strength of their products and the benefits of using them.
我选错了，选了E答案是C
E的解释是：The publication of information about the strength and benefit of the privately-developed encryption algorithms would not disprove that private security firms were behind the difficult to break email encryption algorithm experienced by the government.不是很懂这里not disprove that private secuirty firms were behind the difficult to break，谁能给翻译一下？

anitaxiao

DesmondWang 发表于 2012-12-5 00:59
有点明白了，哎，看来我的英语功底真的很差，看到这种not disprove双重否定，就犯晕，怎么也顺不过来。。。 ...

看一下！               

DesmondWang

我就是有时看不懂题目，看着看着就会犯晕，然后就完全不知道在看什么，大脑会停滞= =
其实刚才我已经翻译出来了，搞反了
E“信息公开不能证明【是private firms 导致了政府所经历的difficulty这个事实】是错误的”，所以换句话说，【是private firms 导致了政府所经历的difficulty个事实】有可能是正确的（这正是政府官员的推论，现在要削弱就要说明不是private firm导致的）
有时就在那里怎么也转不过弯来，哎，已经看了那么多时间了，一点都没有好转......

DesmondWang

The publication of information about the strength and benefit of the privately-developed encryption algorithms would not disprove that private security firms were behind the difficult to break email encryption algorithm experienced by the

公布algorithm的优点和好处不能改变privately developed algorithm所造成的政府专家无法解决的困扰。也就是说仅仅公布优点和好处而不公布源代码不足以让政府解除顾虑。

经过筛选，我最后留下了B和C 但是我选择了B。理由是：大量的private的研究可以最终让政府获得破解 difficult algorithm的机会，因此对政府有利。撤的有点远，后来想到了就跟资本主义市场竞争一样，大量的私人或者学术研究最终会间接的让政府获利。

C当时看了觉得好像既然EX政府专家都不能解决那也就是没什么太多帮助。但是后来看了答案后仔细读，发现代码公布了，既然代码公布了就可以帮助政府专家更好学习破解diffcult algorithm，因此政府专家的结论站不住叫。明显这个要比B要更加直接些，也更有效率。

不知道这么思考的对不对，逻辑还是蛮好玩的。

-- by 会员 12711399 (2012/12/5 2:05:02)

我对于别人思路的解读很弱的= =给你贴个官方的解释吧
The government experts concluded that "private firms posed the biggest risk to successful government espionage" and they supported this conclusion by assuming that the unbreakable encryption algorithm in emails came from the private security firms, which had just begun selling encryption algorithms. In order to weaken the conclusion of the government experts, you need to find evidence supporting the belief that the unbreakable algorithm did not come from the private security firms but from another source (such as free open-source developers).
B:This answer does not state that the "other members of the private sector and academia" broke the encryption algorithm and we cannot assume this. If this were true, the algorithm would not be as strong as the government experts suspected and it would almost certainly not be "encryption algorithm that government experts could not break."
这里首先要假设other member也会去broke那个email，估计你的想法跟我一样，有点太远了，我对E也是这么想，公布了好处，政府的人就知道怎么应付了，没有了risk

patrizioren

lz easy啦~
逻辑是比较头疼的，谁都一样，毕竟我们的思维习惯是中文并非英语
祝lz成功~

12711399

The publication of information about the strength and benefit of the privately-developed encryption algorithms would not disprove that private security firms were behind the difficult to break email encryption algorithm experienced by the

公布algorithm的优点和好处不能改变privately developed algorithm所造成的政府专家无法解决的困扰。也就是说仅仅公布优点和好处而不公布源代码不足以让政府解除顾虑。

经过筛选，我最后留下了B和C 但是我选择了B。理由是：大量的private的研究可以最终让政府获得破解 difficult algorithm的机会，因此对政府有利。撤的有点远，后来想到了就跟资本主义市场竞争一样，大量的私人或者学术研究最终会间接的让政府获利。

C当时看了觉得好像既然EX政府专家都不能解决那也就是没什么太多帮助。但是后来看了答案后仔细读，发现代码公布了，既然代码公布了就可以帮助政府专家更好学习破解diffcult algorithm，因此政府专家的结论站不住叫。明显这个要比B要更加直接些，也更有效率。

不知道这么思考的对不对，逻辑还是蛮好玩的。

DesmondWang

有点明白了，哎，看来我的英语功底真的很差，看到这种not disprove双重否定，就犯晕，怎么也顺不过来。。。

patrizioren

behind就是“由。。。引起”的意思
As the private security firms began publicly releasing and advertising encryption algorithms and other security products, these government experts saw support for their conclusion when an encryption algorithm that government experts could not break began appearing in countless emails.
楼主注意以上这句话，
E选项攻击的是针对本句的另一个逻辑链：
（private security firms began publicly releasing and advertising encryption algorithms and other security products）+（an encryption algorithm that government experts could not break began appearing in countless emails）==>那个难倒government专家的algorithm系private security firms所为
如果能够证明algorithm不一定由private firms所为，reasoning同样被削弱。
但是E选项并不足以disprove difficulty系private firm所为。（我这最后一句解释也就是题目注释里面的那句话）

DesmondWang

那E就是“信息公开不能证明【是private firms 导致了政府所经历的difficulty这个事实】是错误的”，不是就是说明可能是正确的，那不也是削弱了吗？还有behind在这里有什么含义？
OMG，我被自己都快搞糊涂了。。。。

patrizioren

谢谢，但是我不是不懂这道题的逻辑链，我是不懂E的解释，C我已经明白了，能麻烦你帮我把E的解释翻成中文吗，我看不太懂它的解释。。。什么叫behind the difficult，是有困难还是没困难？

-- by 会员 DesmondWang (2012/12/4 20:44:40)

个人觉得difficult疑似difficulty，不然后面的那个experienced就无所指了
E翻译为：
XXX并不能disprove以下事实：
difficulty experienced by government 由private firms导致
lz估计是behind的含义一下子没反应过来