曼哈顿CR里一道题，求助NN~~~

xinxinzai

如题。

题目是：
Mayor: The recycling program costs us nearly $1 million to operate every year,
and our budget shortfall this year is projected to be $5 million. We need to cut the
recycling program in order to help balance the budget.
Consumer Advocate: It costs the city more to throw something out than to recycle
it.
The consumer advocate responds to the mayor by
(A) establishing that the mayor's figures were incorrectly calculated
(B) accepting the mayor's conclusion but questioning the legality of the plan
(C) interpreting the mayor's evidence in a way that reduces the validity of the
mayor's claim
(D) introducing a new piece of information that calls into question the validity of
the mayor's conclusion
(E) pointing out that the mayor has not adequately considered the potential
causes and effects of the budget shortfall

答案是D 想问E哪里不对，解释是：This one is tricky. It's true that the mayor
hasn't fully considered the potential effects of
the plan to cut the recycling program— but
that's not what this choice says. It talks about
the causes and effects o f the budget shortfall.
没有完全理解~~~谢谢NN解答！！！

aresilenzio

个人理解，我看到这题也纠结了下D和E，然后发现反驳说的取消回收计划的后果，言下之意也说了，如果取消，这会加剧shortfall。取消只会加剧，是加剧的因素，并不是shortfall的potential的原因，因为这件事已经发生了。发生了就肯定有其他因素造成shortfall，也许是前几年的地震或者外星人入侵什么的，搞塌了很多新房子，然后就发生了shortfall。反正无关紧要。也更不是如果发生了shortfall的后果，比如要取消回收计划什么的。这里最迷惑了，说了因为shortfall所以要取消，但是文章反驳的主要是如果取消了的后果是，加剧shortfall，所以反驳并不是说shortfall的后果。所以反驳是针对回收计划的后果的，跟shortfall的起因和结果无关。也没有指出他哪里欠考虑了shortfall的起因和影响。

xinxinzai

aresilenzio 发表于 2014-9-22 01:47
个人理解，我看到这题也纠结了下D和E，然后发现反驳说的取消回收计划的后果，言下之意也说了，如果取消，这 ...

嗯嗯，挺绕的，但是我想我明白了。谢谢解答~~~