老Prep CR1 55 分类逻辑链有关问题...

ffen

According to the Tristate Transportation Authority, making certain improvements to the main commuter rail line would increase ridership dramatically.The authority plans to finance these improvements over the course of five years by raising automobile tolls on the two highway bridges along the route the rail line serves.Although the proposed improvements are indeed needed, the authority's plan for securing the necessary funds should be rejected because it would unfairly force drivers to absorb the entire cost of something from which they receive no benefit.

Which of the following, if true, would cast the most doubt on the effectiveness of the authority's plan to finance the proposed improvements by increasing bridge tolls?

(A) Before the authority increases tolls on any of the area bridges, it is required by law to hold public hearings at which objections to the proposed increase can be raised.

(B) Whenever bridge tolls are increased, the authority must pay a private contractor to adjust the automated toll-collecting machines.

(C) Between the time a proposed toll increase is announced and the time the increase is actually put into effect, many commuters buy more tokens than usual to postpone the effects of the increase.

(D) When tolls were last increased on the two bridges in question, almost 20 percent of the regular commuter traffic switched to a slightly longer alternative route that has since been improved.

(E) The chairman of the authority is a member of the Tristate Automobile Club that has registered strong opposition to the proposed toll increase.

这题答案我没什么异议，选D，能够明白

但是突然纠结了一下，这题到底是什么分类！？

看到cast the most doubt我觉得这是削弱题。但是自己写了下逻辑链，觉得，结论是fund should be rejected，原因是unfairly force...也就是说，Although之前的都是background。于是看问题问的是，如何削弱筹资计划的有效性，根据我的逻辑链，这题好似变成了加强(因为和结论是一方向的)。

再一想，如果是削弱题，那逻辑链的结论应该是：政府采用提高过桥费的方法来筹资。之前有看到很多NN都说，CR题目里的每一句话都是有用的...于是就很纠结，although之后的一部分，到底在推理之中是起到什么作用的呢?

可能有点钻牛角尖了，也不知道这样的思考，对于最后做对CR是否有帮助，但仍希望大家讨论一下~~谢谢！

sdcar2010

There are two voices here: one is the authority, the other is the author. The question asks for an evidence which weakens the former and supports the latter.

ffen

哇，一下子清楚了！果然每句话都是有用的...谢谢！