本帖最后由 stucashS 于 2010-7-1 06:46 编辑
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?
A Canceling highway projects was not the only way for the President to punish legislative districts controlled by opposition parties. B The scheduled highway projects identified as wasteful in the report were not mostly projects in districts controlled by the President’s party. C 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. D 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. E Reports by nonpartisan auditors are not generally regarded by the opposition parties as a source of objective assessments of government projects. 这道题目选B，我开始选了E，后来发现B也有点问题。 是这样的：原文开始说critics说总统取消projects是对反对党的报复行为，证据是90%的取消的projects都在反对党的区域。 然后说有人出来反对critics，印证report说所有的被取消的projects都是wasteful的，然后说政府不是报复行为。 对B取非，是所有scheduled的projects里wasteful的大部分都在现总统这边。。这确实能够推理出，如果取消掉了一部分的projects,那么这部分projects里必定有一部分是不wasteful而且是在反对党区域内的。 但是如此一来，就违反了原文的evidence：report说的所有取消掉的projects都是wasteful的。。 我的问题就是：削弱题目的时候，原文引用的事实证据也可以否定吗？有这种削弱方法么？ | 
