LSAT-15-2-23 【most support for an argument against..】

pocahontas

主要是对问题不理解。proposing到底是an argument还是gov bill？
the most support for an argument. the argument is against a gov bill.
the gov bill is proposing...还是the argument is proposing...？

答案是E。看选项也只有选E。那么就是说问的就是 文章支持关于下列哪个的argument咯？但是初看题目简直是把意思理解反了。

23. Government-subsidized insurance available to home owners makers it feasible for anyone to build a house on a section of coastline regularly struck by hurricanes. Each major storm causes billions of dollars worth of damage in such coastal areas, after which owners who have insurance are able to collect an amount of money sufficient to recoup a high percentage of their losses.

The passage provides the most support for an argument against a government bill proposing:

(A) that power companies be required to bury power lines in areas of the coastline regularly struck by hurricanes

(B) an increase in funding of weather service programs that provide a hurricane watch and warning system for coastal areas

(C) renewal of federal funding for emergency life-support programs in hurricane-stricken areas

(D) establishment of an agency committed to managing coastal lands in ecologically responsible ways

(E) establishment of a contingency fund protecting owners of uninsured houses in the coastal areas from catastrophic losses due to the hurricane damage.

robertchu

"proposing ..." modifies "a government bill";  the passage supports an argument against the bill.

pocahontas

原文说：政府资助的保险使每个人都能重建房子，投保了的人在风暴过后可以有一大笔钱。

我怎么觉得这正是支持了“为没有投保定人建立fund”的bill了呀？想不通。

是不是我对原文中的who have insurance理解错了？这里说的是，不管是谁，投保没有，都有政府资助的insurance？还是我理解的，投保了的人才有insurance？ 那么E中的owners OF UNINSURED HOUSE指定是没有投保的人？

pocahontas

still puzzled

davecools

政府资助建立了一种保险，替住在海边的你降低风暴带来财产损失的巨大风险。这项政策并非强制性的，投保与否、投多少自由选择。A

好了，政府如果现在又出台一政策，说没投保的人一样可以得到意外保险。这样就会削弱了政策一的作用，等于激励你不投保。

那么我是一议员，我就会拿出政策一跟政府争，因为这样浪费了提供给它的资源。所以事实A将会是我的有力论据。

Bensontuo

pocahontas 发表于 2004-7-26 10:19
主要是对问题不理解。proposing到底是an argument还是gov bill？the most support for an argument. the ar ...

Spot the question type - Weaken

How could the " argument of the question " support a counterclaim to against " answer as one of the option being proposed as the government bill.

Core of the argument:

Because the insurance are able to collect an amount of money sufficient to recoup a high percentage of their losses, so it is true that insurance for home owners makes it feasible for anyone to build hose on a section of coastline regularly struck by hurricanes.

E - We should have the other fund program for the " uninsured owners "

So... if the argument could support a counterclaim to against E, then the counterclaim of E must be " You are motivating home owner " not to be insured ", and without having home owners insured, government would not be having sufficient government fund, without sufficient government fund, how you could set up a contingency fund protecting owners of uninsured home owners ? "