巨纠结的一道逻辑题啊 求指点！！！感激不尽啊

wjk

In the two years following the unification of Germany in 1989, the number of cars owned by residents of East Germany and the total distance traveled by cars in East Germany both increased by about 40 percent.In those two years, however, the number of East German residents killed each year as car occupants in traffic accidents increased by about 300 percent.

Which of the following, if true, most helps to explain the disproportionate increase in traffic fatalities?

(A) The average number of passengers per car was higher in the years before unification than it was in the two years after.

(B) After unification, many people who had been living in East Germany relocated to West Germany.

(C) After unification, a smaller proportion of the cars being purchased by East German residents were used vehicles.

(D) Drivers who had driven little or not at all before 1989 accounted for much of the increase in the total distance traveled by cars.

(E) Over the same two-year period in East Germany, other road users, such as motorcyclists, bicyclists, and pedestrians, experienced only small increases in traffic fatalities.
答案：D
这道题目的D选项怎么理解呢 说在1989年前很少开或几乎不开车的司机在unification后开车，是总里程数上升的主要原因，那和伤亡率上升有什么关系呢？？？

sdcar2010

An inexperienced driver is more likely to be involved in car accidents than an experienced driver when other conditions are the same.

ffen

哇，大神NN你真是无处不在~~^^这题做得好莫名啊...看到D的选线就被框进去了，一下子就觉得是无关了...囧
为什么D选项非要提一提account for much of the increase in total distance？这是GMAC为了挖坑而挖坑的随便一陷阱，还是说别有深意的提这个总路程?

sdcar2010

Think about the followings:
1) More car. No new drivers.
2) More new drivers. But new drivers do not drive.
3) More new drivers. And they DRIVE.

Which one will solve the paradox in the passage?

ffen

茅塞顿开啊！3！就是为了强调，他们确实是开车的，是逻辑严密而加上去的...CR好严谨啊.......