PREP上一道题，我看的2套资料有2个不同的答案，求正解

熊的传人

Radio stations with radio data system (RDS) technology broadcast special program information that only radios with an RDS feature can receive.Between 1994 and 1996, the number of RDS radio stations in Verdland increased from 250 to 600.However, since the number of RDS-equipped radios in Verdland was about the same in 1996 as in 1994, the number of Verdlanders receiving the special program information probably did not increase significantly.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

(A) Few if any of the RDS radio stations that began broadcasting in Verdland after 1994 broadcast to people with RDS-equipped radios living in areas not previously reached by RDS stations.

(B) In 1996 most Verdlanders who lived within the listening area of an RDS station already had a radio equipped to receive RDS.

(C) Equipping a radio station with RDS technology does not decrease the station's listening area.

(D) In 1996 Verdlanders who did not own radios equipped to receive RDS could not receive any programming from the RDS radio stations that began broadcasting in Verdland after 1994.

(E) The RDS radio stations in Verdland in 1996 did not all offer the same type of programming.
我看到的2个答案一个选A，一个选D。 我个人认为选D，因为取非削弱了，关于A，我不是很理解。。。句子的意思没搞懂，求大侠翻译~~最好分析下结构，然后看正确答案应该是哪个~

HerringtonD

from manhattan

http://www.manhattangmat.com/forums/radio-stations-with-radio-t3196.html



here's a diagram for this argument:

(# of rds-equipped stations increased 250-->600)
BUT
(apprx same # of rds radios in Vland)
THEREFORE
(apprx same # of people receiving rds signals in Vland)

if you make this diagram, it should be clear that there's a logical leap between the latter two statements: the author is assuming a direct correlation between the # of rds-equipped radios and the # of people who actually receive rds signals with those radios.
in order to make this connection, you need to assume that nobody, or almost nobody**, with an rds-equipped radio is now (in '96, that is) able to receive a signal but wasn't able to receive a signal back in '94. that's pretty much what (a) says.

**the reason 'almost nobody' is ok is because the passage hedges its bets by speaking in approximations: 'about the same', 'did not increase significantly'. this is the source of the 'few if any' at the beginning of choice (a).
had the passage spoken in more absolute terms - 'the same', 'did not increase' (i.e., at all), then you'd have to replace 'few if any' with 'none'.

熊的传人

from manhattan

http://www.manhattangmat.com/forums/radio-stations-with-radio-t3196.html



here's a diagram for this argument:

(# of rds-equipped stations increased 250-->600)
BUT
(apprx same # of rds radios in Vland)
THEREFORE
(apprx same # of people receiving rds signals in Vland)

if you make this diagram, it should be clear that there's a logical leap between the latter two statements: the author is assuming a direct correlation between the # of rds-equipped radios and the # of people who actually receive rds signals with those radios.
in order to make this connection, you need to assume that nobody, or almost nobody**, with an rds-equipped radio is now (in '96, that is) able to receive a signal but wasn't able to receive a signal back in '94. that's pretty much what (a) says.

**the reason 'almost nobody' is ok is because the passage hedges its bets by speaking in approximations: 'about the same', 'did not increase significantly'. this is the source of the 'few if any' at the beginning of choice (a).
had the passage spoken in more absolute terms - 'the same', 'did not increase' (i.e., at all), then you'd have to replace 'few if any' with 'none'.

-- by 会员 HerringtonD (2012/10/24 12:53:35)

3Q ~~