GWD 14 第一道逻辑题就把我给搞定了...

coffee0921

2. GWD17-Q9: （CD-9 Q10）
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.
答案是B，那were not mostly projects 应该怎么解释？怎么看都像一无关选项...

Vickyliu

Necessary assumption. Use negation.

If you negate B, you have "The scheduled highway projects identified as wasteful in the report were mostly projects in districts controlled by the President’s party." If this is true, and since we know that 90 percent of the projects canceled were in legislative districts controlled by opposition party, then we have a problem - clearly politics is involved in the cancellation.

crystalbain

对于这种假设不好判断的题目，最好的办法就是排除无关选项后对可能项进行取非

coffee0921

可是，这不是一道假设题嘛...为什么选一个削弱项呢...能不能再解释下勒...没整明白额

teddyabc

我试着解释一下
批评家的证据是90%的被取消的项目都在反对党选区。但是被认定浪不浪费这个事儿是无党派人士写的报告。所以总统的选择基于sound budgetary policy而不是partisan politics

B选项说被认定为浪费的项目并不大部分在总统选区。
将选项取非：被认定浪费的项目大部分在总统选区，而题目讲90%被取消的项目都在反对党区，从而说明总统的选择基于partisan politics，削弱。

个人见解 求批评求讨论~！