大家好 我是新來的 OG 10th #37

[skywalkerX]

If the airspace around centrally located airports were restricted to commercial airliners and only those private planes equipped with radar, most of the private-plane traffic would be forced to use outlying airfields. Such a reduction in the amount of private-plane traffic would reduce the risk ofmidiar collision around the centrally located airports.

37. Which of the following, if true, would most strengthen the conclusion drawb in the second sentence?

A. Commercial airliners are already required by law to be equipped with extremely sophisticated radar systems.

B. Centrally located airports are experiencing overcrowded airspace primarily because of sharp increases in commercial-airline traffic.

C. Many pilots of private planes would rather buy radar equipment than be excluded from centrally lovated airports.

D. The number of midair collisions that occur near centrally located airports has decaresed in recent years.

E. Private planes not equipped with radar systems cause a disproportionately large number of midair collisions cround centrally located airports.

我最不懂的是D選項 OG上的解釋是說 the number of midair collisions has recently decreased is irrelevant to whether the proposed reduction would further reduce collisions.

想問的是1. 它所謂的purposed reduction是指什麼?
2. reduce risk of collisions 不等於
reduce collision?
我看了OG唯一能夠自我解釋的部份是把D當做果 E當成因
可是感覺說服力很低 還希望各位可以幫解答 第一次PO文 有格式不符的地方請多見諒

[yuerwu]

1. purposed reduction是指，採用了這個方法後，所減少的collisions風險，
是一個未來的東西喔！

2. 你的問題是因為，沒有把後面的時間副詞一起看吧~
一個是現在的 number of midair collision "recently"
一個是未來的 "proposed" reduce collision

3.
這題是說：現在推行這個政策後，未來預計會減少出事風險。
要支持他的論點就是=>是啊！減少私人飛機以後，未來真的會減少出事風險。
E的話就提出了一個好理由，因為闖禍的都是那些私人飛機，
減少他們就減少風險了。

D會錯的話是，他沒有支持的成份，
現在的失事數目已經降低了，跟未來的這個政策推行是否有想得到的結果，
是沒有關係的。

所以OG的解釋是說，
現在已經發生的事實(機場附近的出事率已經減少了)
跟政策推行後是否會有的結果(推行後，會減少出事的「風險」) 是無關的喔。