[求助]pls help out OG-18

firstlady

18.

A proposed ordinance requires the installation in new homes of sprinklers automatically triggered by the presence of a fire. However, a home builder argued that because more than ninety percent of residential fires are extinguished by a household member, residential sprinklers would only marginally decrease property damage caused by residential fires.

Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the home builder’s argument?

A. most individuals have no formal training in how to extinguish fires.

B. Since new homes are only a tiny percentage of available housing in the city, the new ordinance would be extremely narrow in scope.

C. The installation of smoke detectors in new residences costs significantly less than the installation of sprinklers.

D. In the city where the ordinance was proposed, the average time required by the fire department to respond to a fire was less than the national average.

E. The largest proportion of property damage that results from residential fires is caused by fires that start when no household member is present.

这题我做的时候选了A，但是答案是E。不明白怎么想的。

我做时想，因为a home builder argued that because more than ninety percent of residential fires are extinguished by a household member,提到extinguish，home builder认为householder可以灭火，那么A的话，没有得到该方面的训练，那就不会怎么去灭火，那么就weaken home builder的观点拉，而E，说household member 不在引起什么呀，偶想不通应该怎么挂这个逻辑关系。

求救！谢谢

PS：搜索了一下这个题目，一直都没人提出，可能不是什么难题把。。。

lawyer_1

原文的结论是：sprinklers作用小。前提是多数火是家庭成员灭的。A说这些成员没培训，这削弱不了前提，因为不管成员如何，，高也好，埃也罢，男也好，女也行，博士也好，不识字也行，反正事实上是将火给灭拉。所以A无关，不是答案。E说最大的损失是没人在家时，这是从每次的损失上讲，虽然多次是家庭成员灭的火，但少数的几次（没人在）损失却很大，所以sprinklers作用还是大。weaken结论

firstlady

哦，要这样想的，明白，THX