在站内搜了一下，好像没人问这个题，大家不要笑我连这个题都问。。。 During the Second World War, about 375,000 civilians died in the United States and about 408,000 members of the United States armed forces died overseas. On the basis of those figures, it can be concluded that it was not much more dangerous to be overseas in the armed forces during the Second World War than it was to stay at home as a civilian. Which of the following would reveal most clearly the absurdity of the conclusion drawn above? (A) Counting deaths among members of the armed forces who served in the United States in addition to deaths among members of the armed forces serving overseas (B) Expressing the difference between the numbers of deaths among civilians and members of the armed forces as a percentage of the total number of deaths (C) Separating deaths caused by accidents during service in the armed forces from deaths caused by combat injuries (D) Comparing death rates per thousand members of each group rather than comparing total numbers of deaths (E) Comparing deaths caused by accidents in the United States to deaths caused by combat in the armed forces 实在不太明白OG的套路。我看了这个argument以后，第一反应就是国内外的死亡人数不可比，国外死的是士兵，国内死的是平民，这些死去的平民中很可能大部分都是其他原因死的，比如车祸，所以我觉得应该把国内的士兵的死亡人数与驻外士兵的死亡人数比较来分析危险性，然后就选了A，A为什么不能理解成计算出国内士兵的死亡人数与驻外士兵的死亡人数并作比较呢？ 另外，C虽然比较的是死亡率，但平民的死亡人数中显然包括很多种原因，又不是只有战争引起的，怎么就能作为衡量危险的标准呢？ | 
