2-2-3

番茄炒蛋

2-2-3
3. More than a year ago, the city announced that police would crack down on illegally parked cars and that resources would be diverted from writing speeding tickets to ticketing illegally parked cars. But no crackdown has taken place. The police chief claims that resources have had to be diverted from writing speeding tickets to combating the city’s staggering drug problem. Yet the police are still writing as many speeding tickets as ever. Therefore, the excuse about resources being tied up in fighting drug-related crime simply is not true.

The conclusion in the passage depends on the assumption that

(A) every member of the police force is qualified to work on combating the city’s drug problem

(B) drug-related crime is not as serious a problem for the city as the police chief claims it is

(C) writing speeding tickets should be as important a priority for the city as combating drug-related crime

(D) the police could be cracking down on illegally parked cars and combating the drug problem without having to reduce writing speeding tickets

(E) the police cannot continue writing as many speeding tickets as ever while diverting resources to combating drug-related crime

答案是e
是否可以这样理解，因为在把一部分警察掉去缉毒以后，还可以有足够的警察来开超速罚单，那么就说明警察
里面有足够的后备力量，所以警察人手不够这一说法就不对了。这里选的前提是如果警力不够的话，那么在缉毒以后，罚单就开不了那么多了。
这个理解对不对啊，帮我看看，谢谢先

rabbitbug

原文逻辑: 要从开超速罚单的警力中调出警力来打击非法停车, 结果,非法停车没有改善, 那个chief就解释说: 这是因为一部分警力被调去缉毒了. 作者结论: 因为超速罚单的数量没有减少,那么chief的解释不成立.

这里缺少的假设就是: 如果警力被调去缉毒,就不能保证超速罚单的数量不改变(E中所说的), 那么,作者的结论就可以成立了.

番茄炒蛋

rabbitbug
如果是你说的那样，这里面就有一个问题
既然是从开超速罚单的警察里面抽人去缉毒，那又怎么会影响到那些原本就被抽出来去管理乱停车的那些警察呢，这个好像不能为他们开脱的

我的理解是这个chief想说因为从开超速罚单的警察里面抽人去缉毒以后，原本就很紧张的警力就更紧张了，所以他们在开始安排警力的时候呢，可能在管乱停车那块的警察就很少，因为没有人嘛，所以没法多安排人，所以这个管理的结果不好也就情有可原了。

rabbitbug

我知道的你的问题所在了. 看一下原文, the city annouced that ... would, ...would. 这句话的意思仅仅是给出一个背景信息,就是这个城市打算调一些开罚单的警力去打击非法停车, 并没有说已经调出来了. 后来,因为出了一个状况, 就是: 非法停车根本没有改善(这里的才是已经发生的事实, 不可以改变,只可以解释.) 于是chief给出了后面的解释: 因为有一部分开罚单的去缉毒了.(言下之意是, 没有人去打击非法停车了), 所以造成非法停车没有改善.

这样清楚些了吗?

番茄炒蛋

恩，搞懂了，谢谢