求助~老帖新问~prep逻辑！

carmensh

41.(32917-!-item-!-188;#058&006462)


In the two years following the unification of Germany in 1989, the number of cars owned by residents of East Germany and the total distance traveled by cars in East Germany both increased by about 40 percent.In those two years, however, the number of East German residents killed each year as car occupants in traffic accidents increased by about 300 percent.

Which of the following, if true, most helps to explain the disproportionate increase in traffic fatalities?

(A) The average number of passengers per car was higher in the years before unification than it was in the two years after.


(B) After unification, many people who had been living in East Germany relocated to West Germany.


(C) After unification, a smaller proportion of the cars being purchased by East German residents were used vehicles.


(D) Drivers who had driven little or not at all before 1989 accounted for much of the increase in the total distance traveled by cars.


(E) Over the same two-year period in East Germany, other road users, such as motorcyclists, bicyclists, and pedestrians, experienced only small increases in traffic fatalities.

这道题选择D。
但是我想问A为什么不对，我没有看法，是说合并前平均每车乘客比合并后平均每车乘客多。
但是原文说 the number of East German residents killed each year as car occupants in traffic accidents increased by about 300 percent. 是说合并后每年死于车祸的car occupants（我理解的是拥有车的人，也就是相当于一辆车好几个人，其中那个司机），这样一来，能不能就说合并前，因为很多人合坐一辆车，也没那么多车，所以出车祸死的car occupants没有那么多，现在合并后开车的人多了，而且一辆车没有那么多人坐了（都去自己开车了），所以死于车祸的car occupants就剧增了。。。求问这个怎么解释？？？

chongyini

我是这样理解的：
矛盾事件
人们买的车和开车的路程增加了40P,而车主死亡增加了300P.
原来有车很少开的人开始开了就解释了这个contradictory
这和一个车上有多少乘客有关么？那我假设原来好多挤在一个车上的人都去乘公交了，是不是就不对了呢？

carmensh

chongyini 发表于 2013-10-9 21:55
我是这样理解的：
矛盾事件
人们买的车和开车的路程增加了40P,而车主死亡增加了300P.

那么原文那个说的as car occupants怎么理解呢？？

chongyini

carmensh 发表于 2013-10-9 21:58
那么原文那个说的as car occupants怎么理解呢？？

我觉得是开车的人~
车增加40，事故率增加300，原来不开车的开车就解释了这个原因~

qzawxs9876

这里的occupant 是指车内的所有人：
Longman：
occupant ：someone who is in a room, vehicle etc at a particular time:
                 e.g.  Neither of the car's two occupants was injured.
A选项的比较就不对，统一前与统一后

evelyn205205

即使不理解occupant这个词的意思，A也是明显不对的，反过来说就对了，就是合并前的每辆车人数没有合并后多。
但是题目只能选一个答案，于是A的设计就倒过来了。
其实这道题最大的迷惑点是背景，柏林墙倒塌，德国统一，思路会被带过去。
不知道大家是不是这个情况。