- UID
- 860882
- 在线时间
- 小时
- 注册时间
- 2013-2-27
- 最后登录
- 1970-1-1
- 主题
- 帖子
- 性别
- 保密
|
看了大家的讨论,又看了国外Ron的解释(先贴过来Ron的解释:The point is that the 90% statistic would represent a possible bias, unless 90% of all the wasteful projects were in those districts. I.e., if the cancellation of those projects were at all out of proportion with their presence in those districts, then an accusation of bias would be justified.
If that's too confusing, then try negating (B).
If you negate that premise, you get "Most of the wasteful projects were in the president's districts". If that's true, then the fact that 90% of the cancelled projects were in opposition districts—which didn't even contain most of the wasteful projects—would very clearly demonstrate a political bias, thus destroying the argument.)我觉得是理解题目上有问题
首先,理解上注意两点:1.这个项目,被认为wasteful后,不一定被取消。2.读完题目,我们脑海里最好出现两片区域分别被“总统党”占领和被“反对总统党”占领。
B选项是说:那些被认为wasteful的项目本身大部分就在“反对总统党”所管辖的地区里!也就是说本来不好的项目都大部分来源于“反总统党”里,所以90%被取消的项目都在“反总统”党派里也不足为奇啊!你自己干的不咋地,别怪我手下无情!!
Ron的答案实际是取非:如果大部分不好的wasteful的项目都在“总统派”里,完后你还不取消自己的,还去取消人家“反对总统党派”里的。丫的,你这个总统想被弹劾啊!!!太偏心眼了!!以公谋私啊!!
太长了,希望可以帮到各位~ |
|