逻辑寂静大家讨论过的一道题 再来听听小妹的意见吧！

aheadmandy

A year ago the government reduced the highway speed limit, and in the year since, there have been significantly fewer fatalities than were there in the previous year. Therefore, speed limit reduction can reduce traffic fatalities.

The argument is most vulnerable to the criticism that it takes for granted that（注意：这个题问削弱）
A. highway traffic has not increased over the past year
B. the majority of drivers obeyed the new speed limit
C. there is a relation between driving speed and the number of automobile accidents
D. the new speed limit was more strictly enforced than old one
E. the number of traffic fatalities the year before the new speed limit was introduced was not abnormally high


就是这道题，很多人说答案是C，可我想来想去还是E啊~~

题目是否可以准确地翻译为：这篇argument由于把以下哪一项当做理所当然（的假设或者条件）而容易受到攻击？ 小妹觉得可以不把它划分为削弱题或者假设题什么的吧，也没有说哪道题必须划分到哪一类  然后再看选项  
C选项说：driving speed 和 number of automobile accidents之间有联系，注意说的是有联系。
 这个选项的意思是说由于作者认为这两者之间有关系所以容易受到攻击。但是我认为此处作者只是认为这两者之间有关系，并没有说 driving speed 就决定了number of automobile accidents，也就是说只是比例关系，而作者并没有排除造成number of automobile accidents改变的其他原因。所以我认为C不正确
而E选项说：在降低limit speed之前那一年的number of traffic fatalities没有异常地高。也就是说作者根本没有做任何的工作就认为前一年的number of traffic fatalities没有异常高，那要是前一年的数据异常高（注意是异常），那今年降下来那就是很有可能的事情，那今年number of traffic fatalities降下来的原因就可能不是因为降低了限速，作者因此而受到攻击。


不知道我说清楚没有，一直绕

aheadmandy

自己先顶一下，睡觉去~

tingting85114

it takes for granted that的意思是（理所当然地以为）。所以这个问题其实是问的是"the argument is most vulnerable to the criticism"因为it 理所当然地以为....C. there is a relation between driving speed and the number of automobile accidents