请教逻辑大全-B-2

atlantiswind

2. In the years since the city of London imposed strict air-pollution regulations on local industry, the number of bird species seen in and around London has increased dramatically. Similar air-pollution rules should be imposed in other major cities.
Each of the following is an assumption made in the argument above EXCEPT:
(A) In most major cities, air-pollution problems are caused almost entirely by local industry.
(B) Air-pollution regulations on industry have a significant impact on the quality of the air.
(C) The air-pollution problems of other major cities are basically similar to those once suffered by London.
(D) An increase in the number of bird species in and around a city is desirable.
(E) The increased sightings of bird species in and around London reflect an actual increase in the number of species in the area.
答案是A？ 为什么呢？ 原文不是因为local industry才使air-pollution 增加的吗？所以如果如A所说，应该是个假设啊  ？我觉得应该是E？ 该提与其他动物没有关系把？

8. Current farm policy is institutionalized penalization of consumers. It increases food prices for middle- and low-income families and costs the taxpayer billions of dollars a year.
Which of the following statements, if true, would provide support for the author’s claims above?
I.  Farm subsidies amount to roughly $20 billion a year in federal payouts and $12 billion more in higher food prices.
II.  According to a study by the Department of Agriculture, each $1 of benefits provided to farmers for ethanol production costs consumers and taxpayers $4.
III. The average full-time farmers have an average net worth of over $300,000.
(A) I only
(B) II only
(C) III only
(D) I and II only
(E) I, II, and III
答案D 。 II 虽提到taxpayers交得多， 提但是没有能说明一定costs the taxpayer billions of dollars a year.呀？这个为什么也对呢？

billzhaogx

2 Species in this question refer to BIRD species  Not  another animal species
   I think choice A is tricky, cause the subject "Local industry" is the industry   established     in   city of London. Choice A  omits  the possibility that some industries that have plants in another city are established at  the other place.
8 The author's claim is "Current farm policy is institutionalized penalization of consumers."
  Folling this claim is hisargument.  
  So II support his claim.

krusher

Hi, there, I think choice A is wrong simply because the author asserts the air-pollution problems are caused almost ENTIRELY  by local indurtry. It's true that local industry contributes to the air-pollution. However, it may not be the sole resource.  Residental dumping, for example, can also be a factor.

Lhitachii

我觉得空气污染这道题 C 挺有道理,到底哪个选项对亚?

nianbohu

C肯定是一种假设了，
既然伦敦的方法可以应用到其他城市，那么他们应该有相似性才可以啊；

Jackjokes

但我也觉得E也不对啊，文中只提到了鸟的种类，好象和其他的物种毫无关系吧。为什么不选E呢。A当然也该选。

Seven9208

我觉得A是一个ASSUMPTION。所以我也选了E

hollyyao

If the increased sightings of birds species do not reflect an actual increase of species in the city, the advantage of the air pollution regulations will be greatly undermined since the evidence “the number of bird species seen in and around London has increased dramatically” is used to support the conclusion"Similar air-pollution rules should be imposed in other major cities"。So Choice E is an assumption.

Pay attention to the formulation of conclusion "Similar air-pollution rules should be imposed in other major cities". Nobody mentions "similar air pollution rules ON LOCAL INDUSTRY" , so whether it is the local industry that causes the main pollution does not matter.

In regard to question No.8, a dollar of benefits to farmer already costs consumers and taxpayers 4 dollars, the farm policy as a whole does cause tax payers billions and billions of dollars.