Which of the following most logically completes the editorial below?
Editorial in Golbindian Newspaper: For almost three months, opposition parties have been mounting daily street demonstrations in the capital in an effort to pressure the ruling party into calling an election. Though the demonstrations were well attended at first, attendance has declined steadily in recent weeks. However, the decline in attendance does not indicate that popular support for the opposition's demands is dropping, since
the opposition's demands have not changed during the period when the street demonstrations have been mounted.
No foreign governments have expressed any support for the opposition's demands.
The state-controlled media have ceased any mention of the demonstrations, leaving many citizens outside the capital with no way of knowing that demonstrations continue.
There have not recently been any antigovernment demonstrations in cities other than the capital.
A recent sharp decrease in unemployment has led to increased popular support for the government.
A选项看错,Demand 不等于 support, 所以demand 变不变化没有关系 。
首都的游行人数减少,但支持率并没有减少。C:媒体停止报道游行,使得首度以外的其他群众根本不知道游行还在继续。这说明很多外地的本来是想投入游行的,但是以为游行结束了或者其他,总之可能以为游行没有continue了,导致了到场参加人数开始下降,但这并不能表明支持率的下降。
首都的游行人数减少,但支持率并没有减少。C:媒体停止报道游行,使得首度以外的其他群众根本不知道游行还在继续。这说明很多外地的本来是想投入游行的,但是以为游行结束了或者其他,总之可能以为游行没有continue了,导致了到场参加人数开始下降,但这并不能表明支持率的下降。
参加对方示威的人在减少,但不能说明支持的人减少,为什么?
正确选项一定是给出示威的人减少的其他原因(不是因为不支持)
C说明国有媒体停止报道示威,使首都以外的人不知道示威还在继续。不知道所以没有来。
个人理解C有所不同——C:州政府控制的媒体已经叫停了任何和示威有关的报道,使首都以外的居民不知道示威任在继续。媒体没有了如此报道,但是注意,反对党说了他们要“daily street demonstrations”,所以其他地方的人也不知道人数参加的会越来越少。因此其他地方的人还会继续以为很多人参加每日示威,所以他们的支持者不会减少。
看到下面有几位朋友说外州人回来参加,但是我觉得这是加入了自己的猜想,这里强调其他地方的人,我觉得是默认他们不会出席在首都的示威。
欢迎讨论。
demonstrations与support之间的gap
demonstrations↓,support不会下降
→ demonstrations的下降不代表support
→ demonstrations的下降只是由于无法接受关于demonstrations的讯息(无法参与或组织)
demonstrations示威游行
Demand 不等于 support, 所以demand 变不变化没有关系