GWD-2-32 求助各位大侠!

windweed

B是对的. 原argument结论是President 是公正的.

如果对B取非可以推翻原论证:

B.     The scheduled highway projects identified as wasteful in the report were mostly projects in districts controlled by the President’s party.但是却没有被cancel, 所以就说明president还是有党派私心. 使得原结论不成立了.

E 不对,首先auditor report是发生在president decision 之后, 和predident 做决定的动机无关

             再者, E即使是在decision之前发生,也是weaken了原结论.

小剪刀

同意B。个人认为这道题目本身可以有两个假设方向，一个就是90%，另一个就是 nonpartisan auditors。不过这道题目的E明显错误。只能考虑B了。B初看很难读懂，但是用了取非削弱后，就很明显了。

swlfx

同意B。

jzzbeyond

以下是引用tony6在2004-8-29 16:51:00的发言：

偶怎么觉得B应该也不对呢？

Our critics claim that the President’s recent highway project cancellations demonstrate a vindictive desire to punish legislative districts controlled by opposition parties.

They offer as evidence the fact that 90% of the projects cancelled were in such districts.

But all of the cancelled projects had been identified as wasteful in a report written by respected nonpartisan auditors.

So the President’s choice was clearly motivated by sound budgetary policy, not partisan politics.

B. The scheduled highway projects identified as wasteful in the report were not mostly projects in districts controlled by the President’s party.

对B取非，被CANCEL的项目是来自总统所在党控制的地区。那不是印证了 the President’s choice was clearly motivated by sound budgetary policy, not partisan politics.这个结论而不是削弱了吗?

其实对B取非削弱的是CRITIC的结论，那岂不变成了CRITIC的假设了吗？

B中是scheldled 不是cancelled

正好相反

benja

应该就是B了。

jesuisdesole

以下是引用davidzhn在2004-8-12 13:52:00的发言：

不知怎么给绕进去的, 冥想10分钟终于想通了.

B取非:  nonpartisoner report 中, 大部分wasteful的project是总统管辖区的, 只有少部分, 比如1%是反对党管辖区的.

结合原文, 总统取消的项目中, 1% 反对党的wasteful project 却占了90%,  而绝大部分总统自己辖区内的wasteful项目没有被取消.  说明总统还是有偏颇. not + weaken.

(report是公正的) 如果按照怀疑nonpartisoner report的公正性去推理, 很容易给绕进去, 把B当成 not + support.

我在冥想了五分钟后,看到了这层.....

牛!