og-170

david_348

The proposal to hire ten new police officers in Middletown is quite foolish. There is sufficient funding to pay the salaries of the new officers, but not the salaries of additional court and prison employees to process the increased caseload of arrests and convictions that new officers usually generate.

Which of the following, if true, will most seriously weaken the conclusion drawn above?

(A) Studies have shown that an increase in a city’s police force does not necessarily reduce crime.

(B) When one major city increased its police force by 19 percent last year, there were 40 percent more arrests and 13 percent more convictions.

(C) If funding for the new police officers’ salaries is approved, support for other city services will have to be reduced during the next fiscal year.

(D) In most United States cities, not all arrests result in convictions, and not all convictions result in prison terms.

(E) Middletown’s ratio of police officers to citizens has reached a level at which an increase in the number of officers will have a deterrent effect on crime.

I choose D for it can explain relationship of funding about arrests and convictions,and I think answer E is talking about effectiveness about new police officers,and so answer E is NOT relevant with discussion in the question.

so why e is right?can some nn tell me?

3x in advance

lawyer_1

原文说增加警察会增加caseload of arrests and convictions that new officers usually generate。所以才得出结论增加警察是FOOLISH。E说的是增加警察下住了罪犯，使CASES没增加。所以WEAKEN结论。D说的是美国的大体情况。原文在讲M的情况。没准M就是少数。所以无关。再说，即使D是说M的情况，也不对，原文是说增加ARRESTS就已经增加工作量了。而D只说not all arrests result in convictions，没有说增加警察不一定增加ARRESTS。

思谦

有个问题，虽说我可以理解E是Weaken，但我觉得D也是啊。文中有钱雇佣新警察，但没钱雇用后面那些人，D中说的不是所有的arrest会造成convictions 和prison，不就是说用不着增加后面的人吗，不就是没钱雇那些人也就没关系了吗，不也就是weaken吗？请大家帮我解释解释

ESeraph

看上去D也可以，但实际上属于多余的不当推理。不是所有的arrest会造成convictions 和prison，那么到底会有多少呢，并不知道，可能会造成没有sufficient funding to pay the salaries of additional court and prison employees，也可能不会，这是无法判断的

思谦

谢谢ESeraph，终于彻底懂了

KATIEUS

zt_lby

以下是引用lawyer_1在2004-10-30 23:53:00的发言：
原文说增加警察会增加caseload of arrests and convictions that new officers usually generate。所以才得出结论增加警察是FOOLISH。E说的是增加警察下住了罪犯，使CASES没增加。所以WEAKEN结论。D说的是美国的大体情况。原文在讲M的情况。没准M就是少数。所以无关。再说，即使D是说M的情况，也不对，原文是说增加ARRESTS就已经增加工作量了。而D只说not all arrests result in convictions，没有说增加警察不一定增加ARRESTS。

明白了，版主真厉害！

lisy

以下是引用ESeraph在2005-7-28 19:19:00的发言：
看上去D也可以，但实际上属于多余的不当推理。不是所有的arrest会造成convictions 和prison，那么到底会有多少呢，并不知道，可能会造成没有sufficient funding to pay the salaries of additional court and prison employees，也可能不会，这是无法判断的

对，关键就在于"not all" 不是所有的，不代表没有可能，只要有1%的可能，都会增加后期的工作量

dingxiang

大家都在讨论D, 想问下A啊,

OG的解释说

A: If crime is not reduced, then arrests and convictions will remain the same or possibly go up; this statement does not weaken the conclusion.

A 为啥不削弱呢? 在我看来A是加强呀,

ironpual

dingxiang 发表于 2008-5-3 22:44
大家都在讨论D, 想问下A啊, OG的解释说A: If crime is not reduced, then arrests and convictions will re ...

题目问的是削弱呀