fei fei #128

[ustoday]

128. The public in the United States has in the past been conditioned to support a substantial defense budget by the threat of confrontation with the Eastern bloc. Now that that threat is dissolving, along with the Eastern bloc itself, it is doubtful whether the public can be persuaded to support an adequate defense budget.

Which one of the following indicates a weakness in the position expressed above?

A. It presupposes that public opinion can be manipulated indefinitely, without the public’s becoming aware of that manipulation.
B. It refers to past and present events that do not have a causal connection with public support of the budget.
C. It assumes as fact what it seeks to establish by
D. It fails to give any reason for the judgment it reaches.
E. It hinges on the term “adequate”, the precise meaning of which requires reevaluation in the new context.

key: E
可不可以幫我看一下這一題

其他選項的錯誤想不出來

[Pufa]

題目說：
（context）
美國大眾會支持『大量的』防衛性預算是因為A的威脅。
現在這個威脅已經不見了。
（conclusion）
我們很難確定美國大眾會不會被說服去支持『適當的』防衛預算。

A：作者根本沒說什麼操縱民意。
B：剛好相反，是有關連的。
C：這題作者沒有假設什麼事情，只有過去的事實與對未來的推論（作者的結論）。
D：reason就是Now that that threat is dissolving.
E：是啦，作者沒說這個『適當的』防衛預算在新的情境之下到底是多少。因為在這個新的情境之下，作者似乎把『適當的』預算視為『大量的』預算了。

[ustoday]

適量跟大量 的差別 真是錙銖必較!!

看到板上pufa能 解決很多問題 超讚的啦