讨论一道曼哈顿的黑脸题

胡茗译

The president’s nominees to federal circuit courts have been judged conservative for their stands on hot-button issues. But a review of their financial disclosure forms and Senate questionnaires reveals that the nominees are more notable for their close ties to corporate and economic interests, especially the energy and mining industries. Some of them were paid lobbyists for those same interests. Further, the nominees with industry ties were overwhelmingly appointed to circuit courts regarded as traditional battlegrounds over litigation affecting these industries. Independent observers who follow the federal bench believe that the extensive corporate involvement among so many of the nominees is unprecedented.

In the argument above, the two portions in boldface pay which of the following roles?

A) The first is a generalization that the author aims to attack; the second is that attack.
B) The first is a pattern that the author acknowledges as true; the second is the author’s conclusion based on that acknowledgment.
C) The first is a phenomenon that the author accepts as true; the second is evidence in support of the author’s conclusion.
D) The first is the author’s position based on the evidence cited; the second is a pattern presented in support of that position.
E) The first is an exception to a rule introduced in the argument; the second provides the reasoning behind the exception

读了几遍，把握的大概意思是：

（第一句）The president’s nominees to federal circuit courts have been judged conservative for their stands on hot-button issues.  总统候选人一直被认为在热点问题上保守。

（第二三句）But a review of their financial disclosure forms and Senate questionnaires reveals that the nominees are more notable for their close ties to corporate and economic interests, especially the energy and mining industries. Some of them were paid lobbyists for those same interests.转折：其实这些候选人是代表了财团利益的，并不是保守，而是有倾向性。

（第四局）Further, the nominees with industry ties were overwhelmingly appointed to circuit courts regarded as traditional battlegrounds over litigation affecting these industries.进一步提出证据，说明候选人在法院中更多的参与针对背后财团的诉讼，换句话说就是候选人在法庭上会帮助自己人（财团）

如果这样分析下来，第一句和文章后面的部分应该是互为正反的关系吧。单是答案并不是A，而BCDE都是support的关系，请教NN我对题意的理解哪里出了问题呢~~

多谢

Jez

答案是什么？我做了一遍也是A   0.0
论坛里有个解释 https://www.manhattanprep.com/gmat/forums/post12957.html#p12957

Jez

Jez 发表于 2016-12-16 21:41
答案是什么？我做了一遍也是A   0.0

最近在做Manhattan，有些问题不明白，都在哪里讨论呢？

胡茗译

Jez 发表于 2016-12-16 21:41
答案是什么？我做了一遍也是A   0.0
论坛里有个解释 https://www.manhattanprep.com/gmat/forums/post12957 ...

答案是C，这题我想通了

关键词在“more”，argument的态度是相对于judged as 保守，候选人more notable。

也就是说：文章从第二句开始的部分与第一句的关系并不是否定，而是在承认第一句为事实的基础上递进，提出“despite A, more B".

所以关于第一句的理解 B & C是正确的，第二个黑体具体事情，所以应为evidence而不是conclusion。