If a person chooses to walk rather than drive, there is one less vehicle emitting pollution into the air than there would be otherwise. Therefore if people would walk whenever it is feasible for them to do so, then pollution will be greatly reduced.
10. Which one of the following, if true, most strengthen the argument?
(A) If automobile passengers who never drive walk instead of ride, there will be fewer vehicles on the road as a result.
(B) Nonmoving running vehicles, on average, emit half as much pollution per second as moving vehicles, but the greater congestion is , the more nonmoving running vehicles there are.
(C) Since different vehicles can pollute at different rates, it is possible for one drive who walks to make a greater contribution to pollution prevention than another driver who walks.
(D) On average, buses pollute more than cars do, but buses usually carry more passengers than cars do.
(E) Those who previously rode as passengers in a vehicle whose driver decides to walk instead of drive might themselves decide to drive.
the answer is (b), why? I chose (c). how does (b) strengthen the argument? please help, thanks a lot.
B means, nonmoving runing vehicles contribute to the congestion, as well as pollution. So, if people give up riding, then there must be fewer nonmoving runing vehicles, consequently, the pollution will be reduced.
C is out of scope, because there are no any clue in the passage of compare between different vehicles, and this compare does not lend any support to the conclusion drawn from the argument.
ok, i can accept that, although i don't like it. answer c is not right, i admit. i chose it because i couldn't find the one i think right. thanks for explaining it.
btw, i like brave heart, especially that guy's last line "freedom".
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2003-8-29 09:10:00
楼主
