请哪位牛人帮我分析一刀本月机经的逻辑思路

千与千寻117

（V1）Diagnosis of drivers who incurred fatal car accidents reveals that among those drivers under 50 with fatal accidents, 5% are diagnosed to have P. This disease affects peripheral（外围的）vision. However among entire population under 50, only 3% are diagnosed to be infected with P. Therefore it is the P disease that has led to drivers' fatal accidents.
问Weaken.
A.    Many patients with P in later stage cannot drive because their sights are seriously hurt.
B.    Diagnosis of P requires use of a kind of test. However it's unlikely that people under 50 will take this test.
C.    Although P is considered to happen more often among people over 50, some younger people, who are in their 30s and 40s, are also infected with it.
D.    Except from impact on peripheral vision, P does not have impacts on other vision abilities.
E．患眼病不妨碍视力

千与千寻117

马上就要考试啦！
机经主人的答案是b  攻击调查的无效性 说大众不爱做调查  但是并没有说有P病的人更不爱去做调查  那么理解成能出了车祸的人调查后有5%得病p  所以是削弱的么  a e同时也纠结啊  呼叫牛牛

千与千寻117

坐等

sdcar2010

B is better because B points out that the survey might have under-estimated the prevalence of P in the general population. If 5% of the general population have P, then P is unlikely a cause for the fatal accidents.

? Some arguments will tell you that two events are correlated (happened together) and then conclude that one event causes the other. The problem with this kind of causal argument is that it relies on many questionable assumptions. If the conclusion states that A causes B (If reading my posts, a reader’s understanding of CR is increased), look for evidence that says

- B causes A (A reader with good understanding of CR tends to read my posts).

- C causes B or A or both (CDer whose English is superb are more likely to read my posts and have better understanding of CR).

-A and B are not actually correlated (The survey overestimated the increased understanding of CR for most readers after reading my posts).

小耳蛇蛇

B is better because B points out that the survey might have under-estimated the prevalence of P in the general population. If 5% of the general population have P, then P is unlikely a cause for the fatal accidents.

? Some arguments will tell you that two events are correlated (happened together) and then conclude that one event causes the other. The problem with this kind of causal argument is that it relies on many questionable assumptions. If the conclusion states that A causes B (If reading my posts, a reader’s understanding of CR is increased), look for evidence that says

- B causes A (A reader with good understanding of CR tends to read my posts).

- C causes B or A or both (CDer whose English is superb are more likely to read my posts and have better understanding of CR).

-A and B are not actually correlated (The survey overestimated the increased understanding of CR for most readers after reading my posts).

-- by 会员 sdcar2010 (2011/12/17 21:41:38)

谢谢！

ibruhim

i would like to pick C as my answer

A. out of scope
B. out of scope
C. Suspending yet is is somthing to so with demographic factor and disease
D. Out of scope
E.Out of scope

sdcar2010

C.    Although P is considered to happen more often among people over 50, some younger people, who are in their 30s and 40s, are also infected with it.

This is strengthening since it acknowledges that " is considered to happen more often among people over 50", which is the assumption of the argument. Definitely not weakening the argument.

ibruhim

any one get OA? B or C?