GWD31-2-32

jaleel

Q32:

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?

1. Canceling highway projects was not the only way for the President to punish legislative districts controlled by opposition parties.
2. The scheduled highway projects identified as wasteful in the report were not mostly projects in districts controlled by the President’s party.

3. 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.
4. 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.
5. Reports by nonpartisan auditors are not generally regarded by the opposition parties as a source of objective assessments of government projects.

答案是B，不太明白。

[此贴子已经被作者于2006-12-9 15:19:50编辑过]

glgry

The press secretary wanted to prove that the cancellation conducted by president is not partisan based by demonstrating that all of the canceled projects had been identified as wasteful in the report written by nonpartisan auditors. Among the projects identified as wasteful in the report if only those projects in legislative districts controlled by opposition parties were cancelled by president, the cancellation is by all means a partisan action.

lihjpb

按楼下的意思的话，我觉得B应该把the president's party 改为 the opposition parties才合理吧

[此贴子已经被作者于2007-9-28 11:11:42编辑过]

cyoasis

B不正印证了题意吗？the president's party 对对方予以重罚，是建立在他们自己的wasteful projects 不多，"were not mostly",要不然不就有partisan politics的可能了嘛

adcc5460

关键是这句：So the President’s choice was clearly motivated by sound budgetary policy, not partisan politics

意思就是总统的选择和BP（budgetary policy)有关，而与PP(partisan politics)无关。我们的逻辑就是要证明确实否定PP的因素。而不是肯定BP的因素。

A 和PP有关，但不对。虽然不是唯一，却未否定。

B 直接说明了不是PP原因。

C 没有说是否与BP或PP有关，说了第三个原因。直接PASS

D 说明和BP有关，至于本身正确与否都不重要。

E 和PP有关，不过说的是反对党。

adcc5460

以下是引用lihjpb在2007-9-28 11:06:00的发言：

按楼下的意思的话，我觉得B应该把the president's party 改为 the opposition parties才合理吧

这样改也对，都是说明了不是政治因素。