gwd-25-22

maryheliu

There are two lines in in:

Line 1: false fire alarm destroys normal work---removing alarm boxes can reduce prank calls;

Line 2: nearly everyone has private telephone---people are still able to report a fire after removing alarm boxes.

In my opinion, line 2 is core line. If not everyone has private telephone, alarm boxes cannot be removed even though lots of prank calls made; so we should focus on line 2, any choice related with line 1 is irrelevant. Then what we should do is to find advantage of using private call to report fire.

yangxuemei0111

还是不明白，我觉得B也可以呀。。

MaccMichAA

...

MaccMichAA

...汗 我也是A...underlying assumption 就是 it is workable to reduce prank calls.

支持应该首先支持暗含的假设 从而达到支持结论的目的

A.     The fire department traces all alarm calls made from private tele-

phones and records where they came from.

既然可以追踪电话的来源 无疑是对制造prank calls的人的一个威慑

胡说了

heshaohua666

a 绝对错误，不用说也会trace这的电话的来源。不然怎么定位火灾。个人是否用个人电话打骚扰电话与本题无关。

Removing the boxes will reduce the number of prank calls 。

heshaohua666

既然可以追踪电话的来源 无疑是对制造prank calls的人的一个威慑－－－－－这里是说Removing the boxes ，不是个人电话的主题

heshaohua666

追踪的确可以减少骚扰电话，但与取消报警合所减少的骚扰电话是两回事。

panglin

thx, like that

michaellu97

此题背后还有一个意思，这些 alarm box 是可以被追踪的，如果不能被追踪的话，fire dept 就不知道到哪里去灭火了。

要支持 “without hampering people's ability to report a fire”，就要说明用 private phone 可以达到 alarm box 一样的效果，这就说明 A 是正确的。

C 和 D 都是说明用 private phone 带来的好处，而不是解释 "without hampering people's ability to report a fire"

sabrina07

up