FeiFei-20

willandgrace

20. A rise in the percentage of all 18-year-olds who were recruited by the armed services of a small republic between 1980 and 1986 correlates with a rise in the percentage of young people who dropped out of high school in that republic. Since 18-year-olds in the republic are generally either high school graduates or high school dropouts, the correlation leads to the conclusion that the republic’s recruitment rates for 18-year-olds depend substantially on recruitment rates for high school dropouts.

Which one of the following statements, if true, most weakens the argument?

(A) A large number of 18-year-old high school graduates were recruited for the republic’s armed services in 1986 than in 1980.

(B) Many of the high-technology systems used by the republic’s armed services can be operated only by individuals who have completed a high school education.

(C) Between 1980 and 1986 the percentage of high school graduates among 18-year-olds recruited in the republic rose sharply.

(D) Personnel of the republic’s armed services are strongly encouraged to finish their high school education.

(E) The proportion of recruits who had completed at least two years of college education was greater in 1986 than in 1980.

答案是C,想知道A怎么不对? 谢谢.

lawyer_1

原文的结论是在退学高中生的百分比上升和参军中18青年的百分比上升有密切关系中基础上得出的。1986年毕业生人数比1980年人数多不见得比例升高。所以它WEAKEN不了证据。

willandgrace

y, appreciate it.

cuili

可是答案C和题目给的信息矛盾啊，题目说１８岁的不是graduates就是 dropout，dropout 的比例已经增加，怎么可能graduate的比例也增加（答案Ｃ所说）呢　我觉得应该选B,因为dropout没 graduate不会用武器，所以不能参军，所以dropout和参军没关系

nickt

就是要矛盾,呵呵.

C 提供了一个另外的原因,用以解释参军百分比的提高.可以否定原文中的原因.所以weaken.

原文主要是解释,或提供原因.如果有他因造成同样结果,即weaken原arguement.

julietayue

to cuili: 原题中说的是young people的drop out比率增加了(correlates with a rise in the percentage of young people who dropped out of high school in that republic), 而不是18岁drop out比率增加.

这样看来, C就和原题不矛盾了.

LuckiPanda

。。。

to cuili: C选项说的不是graduate的比例也增加，而是这些graduate(毕业的，非辍学的）去参军的比例增加。从而提供了另一个解释，从而weaken

。。。

[此贴子已经被作者于2007-7-23 10:14:48编辑过]

xueer

good