[求助]Princeton的一道模考题

cranezhang

The number of violations of environmental regulations recorded each year
is directly proportional to the number of Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) officials assigned to a particular industry: the more EPA officials
there are to police it, the more a particular industry will be charged with
violations.So, the allegedly environmentally insensitive chemical companies
harm the environment no more that do other industries,but their violations
provoke such strong public outcry and EPA reaction that they are charged
with more violations than any other industry.

Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the argument
made by the author in the above passage?

A.Egregious violations of the Environmental Protection Act by other
industries rarely receive the kind of publicity that chemical companies'
violations do.

B.If less dramatic violations of the Environmental Protection Act by other
industries were actively investigated, the number of recorded violations in
these industries would increase dramatically.

C.The impact of the Environmental Protection Act on the U.S chemical
industry has significantly reduced environmental damage done by that
industry.

D.The number of recorded violations of the Environmental Protection Act
by a particular industry is always directly proportional to the number of EPA
officers assigned to that industry.

E.Other industries have a higher compliance rate with Environmental
Protection Act restrictions than does the chemical industry.



正确答案是E。我在读完题后并没有完全明白题目中的逻辑。我觉得题目中后半段的结论好像和前半段中给出的premise（即officials越多，所记录的violations越多）没有太大关系，我对结论的理解是：化工行业的violations引起公众及EPA的关注，以至于此行业被记录的violations增加（可能这里有一个隐含假设，即：EPA的关注会导致分配到此行业的official增加）。而答案E好像无法weaken此结论。不知道大家的看法如何？

elvislg2003

The number of violations of environmental regulations recorded each year is directly proportional to the number of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) officials assigned to a particular industry: the more EPA officials there are to police it, the more a particular industry will be charged with violations.So, the allegedly environmentally insensitive chemical companies harm the environment no more than do other industries,but their violations provoke such strong public outcry and EPA reaction that they are charged
with more violations than any other industry

1)correct a typo, changing that to than

2)The argument says that 并不是真有那么多violations, 而是人多， 鸡蛋里挑骨头。在看E(注意它用了一个比较)；直接否定这一说法，别的行业比化工业更加遵守纪律。言下之意，化工业真有很多违规。

howardwang

如楼上所说，原题应该漏了一个than

对环境的伤害多少，与环境法规的遵从程度是不同的概念。

从E可以看出，化学工业的法规违反率高，从另一个侧面说明了their violations
provoke such strong public outcry and EPA reaction that they are charged
with more violations than any other industry.
所以，削弱结论。

cranezhang

明白了！多谢两位的解释！

PKGMAT

这好像是一个直接weaken结论的方式？机考真题是不是不常用这种思路？

cranezhang

我是感觉princeton的有些题比较怪，与ets的思路好像不太一致。