IR 43 题，看了很久都没有看懂

lxlxl

抛砖引玉。

可是看43A的解释，
The only statement in the table that the dialogue strongly suggests Professor A would disagree with is C. For example, if the relative distribution of spending by the aid industry between primary schools in the poorest areas, medicines and other basic supplies for health care such as mosquito nets, and the few key agricultural initiatives is maintained, while spending in other areas is drastically reduced, then the aid industry will thereby focus its spending more on primary education than it now does. 这里他举的这个例子是想说明什么呢？
他的题干里只在spending on primary schools用了in the poorest areas 限定，恰恰这个限定在C选项里面被拿掉了，而在解释里又拿出来了。
从另一个角度理解，他C里面所指的spending less 是指所有的Primary schools么？这样，因为都减少所以按照他的说法then the aid industry will thereby focus its spending more on primary education than it now does.

我也倾向同意“Limit it's efforts to的意思是，把努力局限于...，因此他是支持aid industry投入”的解释。可是GMAC对这道题这里的解释和举例也未免显得牵强和无厘头了吧？


希望各位N人拍砖～

追风ChaseWind

Reasoning diagram:

Professor A: contends to limit efforts in three aspects as below:
1.    Spending on primary school in poorest area
2.    roviding medicine and other basic supply for health care
3.    A few key agriculture initiatives

Professor B: road better than a teacher <-- if local people could transport the products, they will pay for school and make sure the effects

Purpose: we need two options:
1.    rofessor A opposed
2.    rofessor B will use it to support 1.

It will be easy if we start from confirming the “2”, Viz. professor B will agree with it:
Only F is closed to it

Then we need confirm “1”
The key is which one is the “2” support, viz. not put so much money on school, obviously, only C.

In test, up to now, it is ok; we do not need further more work. But right now, we can:

Professor contends: limit efforts in three aspects, viz. the total amount should be reduced. That purpose is the key, not just reduced efforts in just one aspect, not two aspects. The “C” only address one aspect, so it is against to the professor’s argument.