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?
- Canceling highway projects was not the only way for the President to punish legislative districts controlled by opposition parties.
- The scheduled highway projects identified as wasteful in the report were not mostly projects in districts controlled by the President’s party.
- 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.
- 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.
- Reports by nonpartisan auditors are not generally regarded by the opposition parties as a source of objective assessments of government projects.
之前争议都在B、E之间，但我认为这道题应该选D，理由如下： 原文逻辑：反对党：大部分被撤销的项目都在反对党地区，所以总统偏心 作者：大部分被撤销的项目都在无党派人士的报告中，所以总统不偏心（隐含的逻辑是无党派人士是公正的；即项目被撤销和地域无关，只和是否浪费有关，或财政政策budgetary policy有关
B中说被撤销的高速公路项目大部分不在执政党所在辖区。这是反对党的逻辑 大家说的将B取反，可以证明总统偏心是对B选项的理解错误。B中The scheduled highway projects 正是题目中所说的被取消的高速路项目，如果将B取反：这个项目大部分都在执政党辖区，刚好说明总统不偏心。
E中说反对党不认为无党派人士的报告是客观的，weaken了结论
D中说在执政党辖区被撤销的项目并不比在反对党辖区撤销的项目贵，这正是作者的逻辑，证明了项目被撤销和地域无关，只和是否浪费有关，或财政政策budgetary policy有关 | 
