大全sectionD,13

[freshmanduke]

13. Since the passage of the state’s Clean Air Act ten years ago, the level of industrial pollutants in the air has fallen by an average of 18 percent. This suggests that the restrictions on industry embodied in the act have worked effectively. However, during the same period the state has also suffered through a period of economic decline. The number of businesses in the state has fallen by 10 percent, and the number of workers employed has fallen by 12 percent. It is probable that the business decline, rather than the regulations in the act, is responsible for at least half of the decline in the pollution.

Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the conclusion drawn in the passage above?
(A) During the last ten years, economic conditions in the nation as a whole have been worse than those within the state.
(B) Amendments to the Clean Air Act that were enacted six years ago have substantially strengthened its restrictions on industrial air pollution.
(C) Of the businesses that ceased operating in the state during the last ten years, only 5 percent were engaged in air-polluting industries.
(D) Several large corporations left the state during the last ten years partly in order to avoid compliance with the Clean Air Act.
(E) Due to its small budget, the state office charged with enforcement of the Clean Air Act has prosecuted only two violators of the law since its passage.
the answer is C
但我覺得c好像無法weaken the conclusion
我是選d 因為要避免large compliance 所以廠商出走
想請問各位 為何d不行 而c可以
謝謝

[Calvin]

C說那些關閉公司中只有5%是跟污染排放有關的產業，也就是說污染降低的確是因為法案的功勞， 而不是公司減少所造成的 ，所以就反駁了結論

D無法反駁。因為D提到的是large corporations，我們不知道large corporations佔總關閉公司數量的比例有多大。因此沒辦法反駁結論說的 is responsible for AT LEAST half of the decline in the pollution.

FYI

[freshmanduke]

I see , thanks for your answer.
但我想請問一下
我覺得d的答案錯有另個原因
我的想法是
large corporation left because of the regulation=>
regulation and large corporation are both responsible for the decline of the pollution.
想請問大家的想法
謝謝

[Ace]

C說那些關閉公司中只有5%是跟污染排放有關的產業，也就是說污染降低的確是因為法案的功勞， 而不是公司減少所造成的 ，所以就反駁了結論
FYI

可是原題說法案實施後減少了18%的污染
為何5%的減少可contribute to 18或至少一半的汙染
文中也沒有資訊告知這5%是高污染源 佔全體污染的大部分

從另一個角度看,正因為只有5%的相關污染產業關門大吉
所以18%的汙染有可能是因為經濟下滑因素導致許多工廠關門所造成

[hwatai]

dear ace

我完全同意你的說法，我第一次作題時一路刪．．A刪、B刪、C刪、D刪、E刪，咦．．．搞什麼，只好重來一次，把百分之百錯誤的刪去，然後剩下CD兩個選項

D有Several 和 partly，通常不會是邏輯考題的標準答案，在這裡我就選了C。

另外，這一題的題目是X1→Y且X2→Y，結論是X2→Y，要求反駁結論

但是D選項只是重覆了一次X1→Y，並沒有充份反駁到X2

所以，如果有一個選項項是X3→C，我就會選，表示X1X2都不對，還”另有它因”，但是沒有這個選項，表示只要從X1X2兩者來討論即可，那麼最有力的答案，自然是能夠將X2否決掉的答案，也就是C。

[dibert8]

(A) economic conditions 比較好 <> 沒有 business "decline"
(B) 修正法案不在推論範圍
(C) 歇業的企業中只有5%是空污產業.看到 only, 句意比較像是"歇業的企業對污染影響有限",因此"營運中的企業的確因法規而減少污染"
(D) several 爭議字眼,不選 (several 到底影響有多大?)
(E) strengthen