2. Crimes are mainly committed by the young, and for this reason merely increasing the number of police officers or expenditures on police services has little effect on reducing the crime rate. In fact, the only factor associated with a crime-rate drop is a decrease in the number of people in the community aged fourteen to thirty.

The findings above can best serve as part of an argument against

(A) the likelihood that any law enforcement program will be effective in reducing the crime rate within a short time

(B) increasing prison terms for young people found guilty of crimes

(C) introducing compulsory military conscription for people aged seventeen to nineteen

(D) raising the age at which students are permitted to leave school（A）

(E) a community’s plan to increase the number of recreational and educational activities in which young adults can participate

我想问一下，这个题目的答案为什么是A？A好像跟题干所说的青少年的数目没有关系啊。我选的E为什么不对？

另外，我还搞不清楚的是，这里问的是argument against，应该怎么理解？还有的题目是说weaken argument，跟weaken conclusion有什么区别？有的题目前面先说一个结论，后面的一句话是前面的结论的解释或原因，那么是否后面的是argument前面的是conclusion？

我觉得题目意思是 以上的ARGUMENT 可以 反对 或削弱 下面哪个选项?

可是还是不明白为什么选A. 大家过来看看吧

the likelihood that any law enforcement program will be effective in reducing the crime rate within a short time

within a short time是状语修饰整个句子，所以翻译应该是

任何法律性的强制措施都会起作用（暗指文中提及的增加警力），对于在短期内减少犯罪率

供参考！

The findings above can best serve as part of an argument against：以

上的发现能最好地作为那种观点的部分反对意见？

A：任何的法律执行方案在降低犯罪率方面可能在短期内收效。

  题目问的是上述发现能够驳斥下面哪一个。A表明任何方案都可能只有短期内有效，

与原文的推理相违背。所以为正确答案。

   E认为娱乐、教育增加可以减少犯罪，但是递推不出来的，根据ETS的理论，这是

哲学，不是逻辑。逻辑是只能在原文的层面上直接推出，推论不能再隔一推理层面。

  个人认为，此题还是比较怪的题，关键是阅读理解方面的问题。