关于Palitito那道

susan0219

For years the beautiful Renaissance buildings in Palitito have been damaged by exhaust from the many tour buses that come to the city.  There has been little parking space, so most buses have idled at the curb during each stop on their tour, and idling produces as much exhaust as driving.  The city has now provided parking that accommodates a third of the tour buses, so damage to Palitito's buildings from the buses' exhaust will diminish significantly.

 

Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the argument?

 

(A) The exhaust from Palitito's few automobiles is not a significant threat to Palitito's buildings.

(B) Palitito's Renaissance buildings are not threatened by pollution other than engine exhaust.

(C) Tour buses typically spend less than one-quarter of the time they are in Palitito transporting passengers from one site to another.

(D) More tourists come to Palitito by tour bus than by any other single means of transportation.

(E) Some of the tour buses that are unable to find parking drive around Palitito while their passengers are visiting a site.

---

答案为C，我选了D。

请问nn，为什么C可以support观点呢？

一直想要在做题中体会lawyer所谓的“结论的特殊性和具体性”，但是发现没有领悟到这句话的精髓。可否请各位就这道题指点迷津！多谢多谢！

程雅祺

文中说： Palitito 没有停车位，所以旅游车就到处逛，逛的时候产生了好多废弃危害了Renaissance buildings

        这个城市现在可以提供容纳1/3的旅游车停靠点了。所以对building的伤害大大的减少了（结论）

加强：C 说旅游车耗费了少于1/4的时间闲逛。

上文不是说了，闲逛带来废气嘛？？闲逛少了，废气少了，伤害少了。 加强结论

D 无关选项。更多的人来这里乘坐其他交通工具和结论有关系嘛？

更过的人乘坐other transportation 就说明旅游车少了嘛？就说明旅游车闲逛少了嘛？ 显然是irrelevante。

susan0219

加强：C 说旅游车耗费了少于1/4的时间闲逛。

但是要support的结论是对building的伤害大幅减少。而C选项只是说旅游车将游客从一个地方带到另一个地方花费的时间只占旅游时间的1/4不到，而原文没有提到原先旅游车发动起来的总时间，所以并没有说旅游车idle的时间比原来少很多，也就不能support排放废气比原来少的论点啊。

还是不明白。请各位指点一下吧！

程雅祺

而C选项只是说旅游车将游客从一个地方带到另一个地方花费的时间只占旅游时间的1/4不到

理解有误～～～

transporting passengers from one site to another 的时间比原来少了1/4

most buses have idled at the curb during each stop on their tour

这里的idle就是在每个site 之间

我想旅行车又不是公交车，应该停的地方（site)就是指stop吧

open to discuss!

susan0219

反复体会C选项：Tour buses typically spend less than one-quarter of the time they are in Palitito transporting passengers from one site to another，认为还是应该为

旅游车将游客从一个地方带到另一个地方花费的时间只占旅游时间的1/4不到

，只是，原文most buses have idled at the curb during each stop on their tour是不是从一个侧面说明原来旅游车必须一直处在运转状态呢？这样现在的“1/4不到”和以前的“一直都在运转”就有了对比了。难道原文表达意思有这么隐讳吗？还是我想太多了？

汗！好吃力啊！

程雅祺

原文most buses have idled at the curb during each stop on their tour是不是从一个侧面说明原来旅游车必须一直处在运转状态呢？    

是的。
    

我就是这个意思啊mm 下次把字弄大点吧，我视力不是太好～～

susan0219

多谢指教！！！

dirtycircle

以下是引用程雅祺在2007-8-3 10:05:00的发言：

文中说： Palitito 没有停车位，所以旅游车就到处逛，逛的时候产生了好多废弃危害了Renaissance buildings

        这个城市现在可以提供容纳1/3的旅游车停靠点了。所以对building的伤害大大的减少了（结论）

加强：C 说旅游车耗费了少于1/4的时间闲逛。

上文不是说了，闲逛带来废气嘛？？闲逛少了，废气少了，伤害少了。 加强结论

D 无关选项。更多的人来这里乘坐其他交通工具和结论有关系嘛？

更过的人乘坐other transportation 就说明旅游车少了嘛？就说明旅游车闲逛少了嘛？ 显然是irrelevante。

C的意思应该是旅游车耗费了大于3/4的时间闲逛吧

kily8878860

A lot of people say that C is correct because:
If the tour buses only spend about 1/4 of the time on driving from 1 site to another, then it means that about 3/4 of the time, the buses will idle next to the building.
With a new parking lot, approximately 3/4 of the damage will go away because the buses will idle in the parking lot instead.

kily8878860

A lot of people say that C is correct because:
If the tour buses only spend about 1/4 of the time on driving from 1 site to another, then it means that about 3/4 of the time, the buses will idle next to the building.
With a new parking lot, approximately 3/4 of the damage will go away because the buses will idle in the parking lot instead.