OG(VR)32

[lovekyoko]

32．A proposed ordinance requires the installation in new homes of sprinklers automatically triggered by the presence of a fire．Howeve5 a home builder argued that because more than 90 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．


先說答案是E

我想問B 解答說 The small percentage of new homes supports the builder's position
請問是支持建商的哪個論點

感謝

[Huang Hsin-Yi]

結論:建商不建議裝火警警報器
原因:90%的火都是人去滅

b-新房屋只是一小部份--表示這個法令更不值得推動,和結論一樣

不知這樣有沒有清楚呀~~~~