[問題]請教真題

[shopcat]

Press Secretary: Our critics claim that the President’s recent highway project cancellations demonstrate a vindictive desire to punish legislative districts controlled by opposition parties. They offer as evidence the fact that 90 percent of the projects canceled were in such districts. But all of the canceled projects had been identified as wasteful in a report written by respected nonpartisan auditors. So the President’s choice was clearly motivated by sound budgetary policy, not partisan politics.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the press secretary’s argument depends?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Canceling highway projects was not the only way for the President to punish legislative districts controlled by opposition parties.

B. The scheduled highway projects identified as wasteful in the report were not mostly projects in districts controlled by the President’s party.

C. The number of projects canceled was a significant proportion of all the highway projects that were to be undertaken by the government in the near future.

D. The highway projects canceled in districts controlled by the President’s party were not generally more expensive than the projects canceled in districts controlled by opposition parties.

E. Reports by nonpartisan auditors are not generally regarded by the opposition parties as a source of objective assessments of government projects.

救命ㄚ!!!想破頭想不出來為何選B
誰可以解釋給我聽ㄚ 謝謝啦

[kikisky]

因為妳沒有明確說明妳困惑的地方.......

怎麼說好呢??

我覺得B直接點明了

"剛好那些被視為浪費(也就是被取消)的計劃剛好都是反對黨的地區(非執政黨所掌控的區域)"

因此

直接support 文章中所說的

But all of the canceled projects had been identified as wasteful in a report written by respected nonpartisan auditors. So the President’s choice was clearly motivated by sound budgetary policy, not partisan politics.

醬解釋不知道妳有沒有懂???

[shopcat]

我翻一下原文
新聞秘書說:我們的評論家聲明最近總統的高速公路計畫取消案顯露出對被反對黨控制的立法院的懲罰.他們提供一個事實,有90%的計畫在這樣的地帶被取消.但是在一份被令人尊重的無黨派審查員所寫的報告指出所有被取銷的計畫被認為是浪費的.所以總統的選擇是清楚的動機根據合理的預算政策

B說在報告裡被視為浪費的高速公路計畫不是大部分被執政黨控制的計畫

這.....我這樣翻有沒有錯ㄚ?
我怎樣都無法把題目跟B串聯在一起說
誰來救救我

[Pufa]

我翻一下原文
新聞秘書說:我們的評論家聲明最近總統的高速公路計畫取消案顯露出對被反對黨控制的立法院的懲罰.他們提供一個事實,有90%的計畫在這樣的地帶被取消.但是在一份被令人尊重的無黨派審查員所寫的報告指出所有被取銷的計畫被認為是浪費的.所以總統的選擇是清楚的動機根據合理的預算政策

B說在報告裡被視為浪費的高速公路計畫不是大部分被執政黨控制的計畫

這.....我這樣翻有沒有錯ㄚ?
我怎樣都無法把題目跟B串聯在一起說
誰來救救我

試試看這樣對不對。
Press Secretary: Our critics claim that the President’s recent highway project cancellations demonstrate a vindictive desire to punish legislative districts controlled by opposition parties. They offer as evidence the fact that 90 percent of the projects canceled were in such districts. But all of the canceled projects had been identified as wasteful in a report written by respected nonpartisan auditors. So the President’s choice was clearly motivated by sound budgetary policy, not partisan politics.

紅色的部分代表評論家的意見。
綠色的代表秘書的意見。
題目問秘書的假設為何，B表示被總統拒絕的方案都是浪費的，且剛好都來自反對黨控制的區域。正好支持秘書的說法。

[kikisky]

注意原文第一句

Press Secretary: Our critics claim that the President’s recent highway project cancellations demonstrate a vindictive desire to punish legislative districts controlled by opposition parties.

就是如妳所說

計畫取消案顯露出對被反對黨控制的立法院的懲罰

也就是說總統的決定是針對著反對黨而來的
但是~
第三句就提出反駁

But all of the canceled projects had been identified as wasteful in a report written by respected nonpartisan auditors.

也就是the press secretary's argument認為總統並非針對反對黨而做出這樣的決定

因此
B選項說明了決策只是剛好落在反對黨的地區上(maybe it's a matter of coincidence, not cause and effect.)

[shopcat]

突然頓悟ㄌ 太感謝你了