看看这道题目，就可以知道LSAT考试的难易了！

cathycathyhan

Conservationist: The risk to airplane passengers from collisions between airplanes using the airport and birds from the wildlife refuge is negligible. In the 10 years since the refuge was established, only 20 planes have been damaged in collisions with birds, and no passenger has been injured as a result of such a collision. The wildlife refuge therefore poses no safety risk.

Pilot: You neglect to mention that 17 of those 20 collisions occurred within the past 2 years, and that the number of birds in the refuge is rapidly increasing. As the number of collisions between birds and airplanes increases, so does the likelihood that at least one such collision will result in passenger injuries.

The pilot counters the conservationist by

(A) attempting to show that the conservationist's description of the fact is misleading

(B) questioning the conservationist's motives for reaching a certain conclusion

(C) asserting that dangerous situations inevitably become more dangerous with the passage of time

(D) discrediting the moral principle on which the conservationist's argument is based

(E) disputing the accuracy of the figures cited by the conservationist

sdcar2010

AAAAAAAAAAAAAa

ulius

我觉得选C，

sdcar2010

C is wrong because of the word "inevitable."

我觉得选C，

-- by 会员 ulius (2011/10/14 14:31:05)

Expert123

A, absolutely.

gillgg

LZ不贴答案么？ a？

lindeman

i dun understand
‘inevitably’ follows ‘become more dangerous with the passage of time’
and that is exactly what the sti says. ‘as the ....so does the likelihood...’

hartmann

A

Based on the same statistics, pilot reached a different argument.  Thus, in conservationist's argument, description of data is misleading.

C is awefully close, but the pilot never implies that the situation is dangerous or will be more dangerous.