[求助]TTGWD2-32

raikey

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.

    E.   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

不解......B说"projects...were not mostly projects in districts controlled by the President’s party",

不就等于"projects...were mostly projects in districts controlled by opposition parties"吗?

这样更能证明"项目下马是因为党争",不是吗?

而C说"被撤的项目不久后会被再次立项目"------理解错误,这跟"budgetary"吻合,为啥不对?

[此贴子已经被作者于2007-5-5 3:09:40编辑过]

raikey

up

raikey

似乎想通了.尚有不解处...请各路豪杰解答!

原本认为B所述内容"被认为是浪费的高速公路工程,不是P党控制区域的主要工程",就是在重复原文内容,其实是我自己默认了这个assumption.

原文内容: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.

逆向分析,从倒数第二句开始: 所有下马工程都是浪费的.

                            倒数第三句: 所有下马工程中有90%在such districts

                                   第一句: such districts是那些被反对党控制的区域

串起来,就是"所有被认为是浪费的下马工程中,有90%在被反对党控制的区域里".

那些批评总统是在政治报复的人,认为(assumption) 最近下马的那个工程属于这90%.(即在反对党控制区,也就是不在P党控制区)

从这个角度讲,似乎能证明B正确.

但我不尽要问:这是the press secretary's argument的assumption吗?这明明是那些批评者的assumption啊!

所谓assumption就是必要条件,缺了就得不到结论的.------------assumption的判据

从原文看,the press secretary’s argument 是指"So the President’s choice was clearly motivated by sound budgetary policy, not partisan politics."------------结论

如果assumption是B即"被认为是浪费的高速公路工程,不是P党控制区域的主要工程",那么试想没有这个assumption时的情况会怎样.例如:"被认为是浪费的高速公路工程,是P党控制区域的主要工程"时,原结论是否就得不到了?  问题出现了: 撤消反对党区内项目都能证明"非党争not partisan politics",那么撤消自己党派区域内项目更能证明"非党争"了.也就是说,该assumption不成立时,更能得到原结论.这与"assumption的判据"相悖.

(正因为此使我改选了C......不过仔细看来,C根本就在瞎扯)

对于本题,只能选B.  但我认为我的分析没错,欢迎大家指正!!!

                           

[此贴子已经被作者于2007-5-5 3:04:21编辑过]

raikey

自己顶

tranquilla

我终于想通了，这题应该这么理解：

如果在无党派人士的报告里绝大部分的浪费项目在执政党控制区，那么在公平执政的情况下，废除的项目在执政党控制区和反对党控制区的比例应该与此相仿，即绝大部分在执政党控制区内。

然而现实情况是90%的废除项目属于反对党控制区，因此与之相匹配的前提必须是，报告中的绝大部分浪费项目属于反对党控制区而非执政党区域。

[此贴子已经被作者于2007-5-27 15:48:40编辑过]

xyredpoppy

同意楼上，这个解释比较通俗易懂~