LSAT 11-IV-12 的思路

dandan74

The foreign minister of Zeria announced today that her country was severing diplomatic relations with Nandalo because of Nandalo’s flagrant violations of human rights. But Zeria continues to maintain diplomatic relations with many countries that the minister knows to have far worse human-rights records than Nandalo does. Therefore, despite the foreign minister’s claim, this latest diplomatic move cannot be explained exclusively by Zeria’s commitment to upholding human rights.
12. The argumentative structure of which one of the following most closely parallels that of the argument in the passage?
(A) Henry’s parents insist that he eat breakfast before leaving for school because not doing so would be bad for his health. But his parents themselves almost never eat breakfast, so their insistence cannot be completely explained by their concern for his health.
(B) Professor Walsh says that only typed term papers will be accepted because most handwriting is difficult to read. But since she lectures from handwritten notes, her policy cannot be exclusively explained by any difficulty she has with handwritten maternal.
(C) James claims that he stole only because he was hungry. But although hunger could account for stealing if food could not be readily obtained in any other way, in this case food was otherwise readily available, and so James theft cannot be completely explained by his hunger.
(D) Armand declined Helen’s invitation to dinner on the grounds that socializing with coworkers is imprudent. But since Armand went to a movie with another coworker, Maria, that same evening, his expressed concern for prudence cannot fully explain his refusal.
(E) It is often asserted that there are fewer good teachers than there used to be because teachers’ salaries have reached a new low. But teachers have always been poorly paid; so low salaries cannot fully explain this perceived decline in the effectiveness of teachers.

为什莫是D,感觉答案好像都对是的，对这类题总是翻晕，那位给指点一二?

dorbear

This question is structured to deny the premise in the form of:

1: A => B
2: A => -B
----------------
A can not cause B

Given this, we can see D is the only one in line with the structure.
(A) His parents never eat breakfast, but we don't know whether they are healthy or not.
(B) What the professor meant for is others' handwriting, not his own.
(C) If we are told that other people were hungry but they didn't steal, we can pick it up, who care the availability of food.
(E) It doesn't offer us the same situation here, "a new low" means a new situation, not the same as before.

Let's look at (D)

Imprudence => Decline invitation of Coworker
Imprudence => Accept invitation of Coworker
----------------------------------------------------------------
Imprudence is not the reason of declining invition. (Must have some other reason)