look at LSAT 4-14

LHL888

14. The mayor boasts that the average ambulance turnaround time, the time from summons to delivery of the patient, has been reduced this year for top-priority emergencies. This is a serious misrepresentation. This “reduction” was produced simply by redefining “top priority.” Such emergencies used to include gunshot wounds and electrocutions, the most time-consuming cases. Now they are limited strictly to heart attacks and strokes.
Which one of the following would strengthen the author’s conclusion that it was the redefinition of “top priority” that produced the reduction in turnaround time?
(A) The number of heart attacks and strokes declined this year.
(B) The mayor redefined the city’s financial priorities this year.
(C) Experts disagree with the mayor’s definition of “top-priority emergency.”
(D) Other cities include gunshot wound cases in their category o top-priority emergencies.
(E) One half of all of last year’s top-priority emergencies were gunshot wounds and electrocution cases.

doesn't E, the so-called answer, contradict the author's claim, which is '... are strictly limited to heart ..."?

kuuiytt

这里不是说的是去年的枪伤多嘛、去年包括在  top-priority emergencies里了，而且是最花费时间的。今年的枪伤没那么多了，而且枪伤也不算top-priority emergencies。所以救护车抢救top-priority emergencies的时间就少了

creativity

E is correct. It stengthens the conclusion because it points out that there WERE a number of such top priority emergencies, such as gun shot and electrocution, last year. In another word, if there were only 1 case of such emergency, or over 99.9% of emergencies last year were heart attack, the conclusion cannot be properly drawn, because the last year and this year will be very comparable in the kinds of emergencies.