For years the beautiful Renaissance buildings in Palitito have been damaged by exhaust from the many tour buses that come to the city. There has been little parking space, so most buses have idled at the curb during each stop on their tour, and idling produces as much exhaust as driving. The city has now provided parking that accommodates a third of the tour buses, so damage to Palitito's buildings from the buses' exhaust will diminish significantly.
Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the argument?
(A) The exhaust from Palitito's few automobiles is not a significant threat to Palitito's buildings.
(B) Palitito's Renaissance buildings are not threatened by pollution other than engine exhaust.
(C) Tour buses typically spend less than one-quarter of the time they are in Palitito transporting passengers from one site to another.
(D) More tourists come to Palitito by tour bus than by any other single means of transportation.
(E) Some of the tour buses that are unable to find parking drive around Palitito while their passengers are visiting a site.
C，E 我最终选了E，觉得E也可以， Whether “some of the tour buses” is not convincing enough
大家给点参考吧作者: momohe 时间: 2011-7-13 20:27
可能我有点钻牛角尖，C中，1/4的时间载游客，并不能推出 3/4的时间在idle，貌似有点明白的是，drive around 和 idling 的区别，是不是E讨论的的driving around，however, in the argument, the government aims at decreasing the decreasing idling time . Therefore, concern about buses that driving around the city is out of scope ?作者: MarilynR 时间: 2011-7-14 21:12
The reason I chose E is that E points out a situation that some tour buses driving around because of a lack of parking space. The government's plan will solve the problem. Tour buses can be parked instead of driving around, therefore exhaust will deminish.
欢迎光临 国际顶尖MBA申请交流平台--TOPWAY MBA (http://forum.topway.org/)
