LR9112-2-25

sevfye

The public in the United States has in the past been conditioned to support a substantial defense budget by the threat of confrontation with the Eastern bloc. Now that that threat is dissolving, along with the Eastern bloc itself, it is doubtful whether the public can be persuaded to support an adequate defense budget.

Which one of the following indicates a weakness in the position expressed above?
B.It refers to past and present events that do not have a causal connection with public support of the budget.
E.It hangs on the term" adequate," the precise meaning of which requires reevaluation in the new context.



E. 但是B说的是什么意思? 不明白B到底是否定了原文的premise, 还是说B本身是对的,但不是错误?

jsl

原文是认为public can't persuaded to support 足够的国防预算

原因是过去有threat 而现在threat 消失了

文章的漏洞在于threat消失对国防预算的需要的影响没考虑进去,打个比方，可能过去有threat的时候国防预算要1000，现在没有了，可能800就够，所以过去不"adequate"，现在可能会"adequate"

而这道题的B没指出原文的矛盾，就是说没focus on the conclusion，设在这个位置，从出题中心的角度出发 依我个人看来应该是迷惑，因为都提到了过去和现在的差别问题，但是没把矛盾点解释清楚，用bible上面的话来说好像可以算是个shell game~呵呵

crusoecrusoe

B陈述事实，并未指出weakness所在。