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?

 

1. Canceling highway projects was not the only way for the President to punish legislative districts controlled by opposition parties.
2. The scheduled highway projects identified as wasteful in the report were not mostly projects in districts controlled by the President’s party.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. Reports by nonpartisan auditors are not generally regarded by the opposition parties as a source of objective assessments of government projects.

比例的问题.

90%反对党的计划被取消.

但是,所有取消的计划都是无党派的审计认为是浪费的.

结论:总统是根据预算判断而不是报复.

B中说多数浪费的计划并不是在总统的district内的.

取非的话,多数浪费的计划在总统的district内.说明了数据的不准确性..结论不能成立.

 B is talking about a situation that makes the conclusion a right way.

since B is correct, the conclusion could be made at such way.If the [scheduled highway projects identified as wasteful in the report were not mostly projects in districts controlled by the President’s party.] is true ,then president cancel the projects not because he want to punish  sb but because that was necessary.Then the conlusion was made smoothly for sure.

I think the explanation should be deeper.

由题可知，P党为在朝党，其下令CANCEL的所有项目中90%都是来自敌对党管辖地区的，这样很容易让外人产生怀疑，怀疑P党是否在搞政治。然后后面一句话又提出了，非党派人士的第三方经查得出所有删除项目都是wasteful的。因此press secretary得出的结论是XXX。

但这里要注意一个题目指向，和每个量的比例关系。
文章开头讨论的是President’s recent highway project cancellations ，注意是高速公路案。下面说的都扩大为一般项目了。既然press secretary得出结论的理由论据是第三方无党派人士的意见，我们就需要知道被讨论的recent highway project cancellations到底是落在哪个范围内。而B选项讨论范围恰好又回到了The scheduled highway projects ，并指出这些被判断为wasteful的高速公路案不应落在那90%个案

例之外的10%内，否则不能用第三方无党派人士的意见来支持自己的结论。

这题我选的是D

结论:总统是根据预算判断而不是报复.

但之前都没有讲到预算的问题，有一个逻辑的GAP在里面，所以应找与预算有关的选项

D取非的话就是PRESIDENT党地区的项目比反对党地区项目贵，却没有被取消，有不公平地报复嫌疑，削弱了结论

B只是重复了题目中这句话的意思They offer as evidence the fact that 90 percent of the projects canceled were in such districts. （disctricts controlled by opposition parties）

我开始也选D，但是后来发现是错误的。因为D选项没有address什么是wastful. 比

如有的district已经有了highway, 如果再设立highway project, 肯定是wasteful,

是浪费budget. 但有的district没有highway, 那么project cost再expensive, 也不

是wasteful的。所以选项D取非，也不能weaken.

而答案B中，如果report发现大部分wasteful projects （比如共100个）都在执政党

控制的district中（比如是80个），而其中真正被cancel的wasteful project（比如

100个中cancel了40个）却90%（36个）在在野党控制的district, 这显然是政治的报

复（不成比例嘛）。

为什么不选E呢？我也觉得B是简单的重复原文，文中的关键不是auditor是中立的么？如果反对党不觉得他中立的话，谁能证明他中立？这不是很好的premise么？