Prep T1 -Q32

[小花]

State spokesperson: Many businesspeople who have not been to our state believe that we have an inadequate road system. (結論) Those people are mistaken, as is obvious from the fact that in each of the past six years, our state has spent more money per mile on road improvements than any other state.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the reasoning in the spokesperson's argument?

(A) In the spokesperson's state, spending on road improvements has been increasing more slowly over the past six years than it has in several other states. 無關比較
(B) Adequacy of a state's road system is generally less important to a businessperson considering doing business there than is the availability of qualified employees.無關比較
(C) Over the past six years, numerous businesses have left the spokesperson's state, but about as many businesses have moved into the state. 無關議題
(D) In general, the number of miles of road in a state's road system depends on both the area and the population of the state.
(E) Only states with seriously inadequate road systems need to spend large amounts of money on road

Ans:E

我選D 不知道為什麼E選項可以弱化?

[crazykai]

這也是OV11的28題唷，解答是這樣寫的

(D) The background information about area and population does not affect the argument about the adequacy of the road system．

Reasoning What point undermines the spokesperson's reasoning? When might heavy spending on road improvements not result in an adequate road system? If the state has needed to spend more money on road improvements than any other state，it suggests that its roads have needed more improving than those in any other state．The high level of state spending on road improvements provides evidence only that the road system was in dire need of improvement and not that it has yet achieved adequacy．

[小花]

感謝crazykai大的回覆

D)提供道路背景無法弱化
E)花大錢在整修道路不代表有健全的道路系統=>弱化發言人的立場
只有那些道路不健全的州才需要花這筆大錢

[monimoni827]

不好意思各位大大...我對此的的E選項仍有些許疑問...煩請大家幫忙解惑!
題目:發言人用has spent來表示此州"已經"花了這大筆錢來修路。
我知道可以用"花大錢也不一定能修好路"來反駁發言人立場。
可是E選項是說，只有嚴重道路不健全的州才需要花這大筆錢，若要用這選項反駁"此州"發言人的話，感覺怪怪的...
我不知道是腦筋已經打結了還是E選項是其他選項比起來比較好的選項。一直沒辦法理解E為什麼可以反駁發言人!!

麻煩各位幫忙解答下~謝謝!

[christinehsu]

我試試者解釋看看，
該州的發言人的推論是這樣子的: 大家都說我們州的道路不好，可是我們花了比別州多更多的錢( spent more money per mile on road improvement) 在修建，所以你們怎麼可以說，我們州的道路不好

可是E選項，有一種倒因為果的想法。 描述，就是道路不健全的地方，才要花大錢。由此駁斥該州發言人的推論

注意: 題目問 most seriously undermines the reasoning in the spokesperson's argument.
要你質疑 發言人的推論方式。
我之前都看題目看太快，所以都略過這點

希望這你能了解， 如有不對的地方，要麻煩指正 謝謝
from longman
REASONING [uncountable]
a process of thinking carefully about something in order to make a judgment
scientific/logical/legal reasoning
reasoning behind
eq: What is the reasoning behind this decision?