在两个选项中纠结，最后还是选错了

ahasusanna

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

Sherryxqr

E不能说是驳斥，它是无关选项。
E认为，一些找不到停车位的车会闲逛排放尾气。（所以一旦有车位，这些

车就不会闲逛污染空气了）。是support arguement
但是这道题在政府建车位目的是想减少idling exhaust而不是driving

exhaust，所以E就无关了。
这样看下来，确实C更好一些。

ahasusanna

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 ?

gdboy8888

E选项不对

找不到停车位的巴士会在游客游览的时候转来转去。这样的话，这些巴士还是会产生和以前一样多的废气，没有产生积极作用，因此这个是驳斥，而不是支持。

huanzitou

C: 指出1/4时间载人，3/4时间空转
现在有了足够停车空间，就减少了3/4空转时间，大大减少了污染，支持结

论。

E：指出有的巴士不能停的时候就还是开，也不空转，觉得木有支持结论诶