LSAT-26-2-10

snow_mountain

Question9-10
If a person chooses to walk rather than drive,
there is one less vehicle emitting pollution into
the air than there would be otherwise. Therefore
if people would walk whenever it is feasible for
them to do so, then pollution will be greatly
reduced.


10. Which one of the following, if true, most
strengthen the argument?
(A) If automobile passengers who never drive walk
instead of ride, there will be fewer vehicles on
the road as a result.
(B) Nonmoving running vehicles, on average, emit
half as much pollution per second as moving
vehicles, but the greater congestion is , the
more nonmoving running vehicles there are.
(C) Since different vehicles can pollute at
different rates, it is possible for one drive who
walks to make a greater contribution to pollution
prevention than another driver who walks.
(D) On average, buses pollute more than cars do,
but buses usually carry more passengers than cars
do.
(E) Those who previously rode as passengers in a
vehicle whose driver decides to walk instead of
drive might themselves decide to drive.


答案B。不明白，特别是后半段，怎么扯到congestion上面来了。而且上面说的是，以步代车会减少pollution. B中说的是，nonmoving running vehicle好像八竿子也打不着的关系呀。

wikeypig

排除它选（NONMOVE），则加强结论（WALK）

snow_mountain

楼上MM，我还是没明白。

要是交通堵塞愈多，nonmoving running vehicle 愈多，而nonmoving runing vehicle 排的污染比 moving vehicle 少。那么只要交通堵塞多就好啦，pollution 也会少。跟walk 有什么关系？

wikeypig

举个例子，晚饭有包子和稀饭两个选择，前提说包子不能吃了，然后又有人说除了这两种吃的外再没别的了，是不是你只能吃稀饭了。
本题只说了面包（其他吃的的一个一个子集）没了而已。

snow_mountain

哎哟，终于开窍了。谢谢楼上MM。

weane

还是看不懂，哪里存在面包没了这种表示？

weiyu

Great explanation. I understand. 关键在结论的feasible