|
我把帖子转过来，这样讨论方便点 估计被斑斑打pp GWD17-9查过以前的讨论 Press Secretary: Our critics claim that the President’s recent highway project cancellations demonstrate a vindictive desire to punish legislative districts controlled by opposition parties. They offer as evidence the fact that 90 percent of the projects canceled were in such districts. But all of the canceled projects had been identified as wasteful in a report written by respected nonpartisan auditors. So the President’s choice was clearly motivated by sound budgetary policy, not partisan politics. Which of the following is an assumption on which the press secretary’s argument depends? - Canceling highway projects was not the only way for the President to punish legislative districts controlled by opposition parties.
- The scheduled highway projects identified as wasteful in the report were not mostly projects in districts controlled by the President’s party.
- The number of projects canceled was a significant proportion of all the highway projects that were to be undertaken by the government in the near future.
- The highway projects canceled in districts controlled by the President’s party were not generally more expensive than the projects canceled in districts controlled by opposition parties.
- Reports by nonpartisan auditors are not generally regarded by the opposition parties as a source of objective assessments of government projects.
这道题E 是无关的，原文里面说RESPECTED 就说明了不可怀疑资料来源充分性 我说说B ，不知道大家以前做没做过一个逻辑题 说一个杂志社，被别人批评对 保守观点的文章保护的时候，举了个例子，说上个月他们在发现观点的时候马上取消发行，然后补充了一个观点激进的文章 一起发行。 问EVALUATE 答案就是：是否在发现激进观点的时候也会补充一个保守观点。 其实这两道题是一样的，都是考虑一个通过比例来确定倾向性的问题。 B 取非 The scheduled highway projects identified as wasteful in the report were（ not） mostly projects in districts controlled by the President’s party. 都在总统管的那片，那还偏向什么？ | 
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2006-7-25 00:16:00
