Budget constraints have made police officials consider reassigning a considerable number of officers from traffic enforcement to work on higher priority, serious crimes. Reducing traffic enforcement for this reason would be counterproductive, however, in light of the tendency of criminals to use cars when engaged in the commission of serious crimes. An officer stopping a car for a traffic violation can make a search that turns up evidence of serious crime.
Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument given?
An officer who stops a car containing evidence of the commission of a serious crime risks a violent confrontation, even if the vehicle was stopped only for a traffic violation.
When the public becomes aware that traffic enforcement has lessened, it typically becomes lax in obeying traffic rules.
Those willing to break the law to commit serious crimes are often in committing such crimes unwilling to observe what they regard as the lesser constraints of traffic law.
The offenders committing serious crimes who would be caught because of traffic violations are not the same group of individuals as those who would be caught if the arresting officers were reassigned from traffic enforcement.
The great majority of persons who are stopped by officers for traffic violations are not guilty of any serious crimes.
这是一个加强题,要找能够加强因果联系的答案。因果联系为,『交通警察搜车能搜出重案的证据,从而帮助破解重案』,答案C说,『犯重案的人,不太会遵守交通法这种他们觉得不太重的法律』。但C选项的难点在于句子比较难看懂。
很多人以为unwilling是修饰crime的,其实你看到are这个谓语动词接的是in committing such crime,你就应该意识到这是倒装句,唯一合适的句子动词是 unwilling,整句为
Those willing to break the law to commit serious crimes are often unwilling to observe what they regard as the lesser constraints of traffic law in committing such crimes.
大家对于D有疑问吗。。我感觉D的意思是,在交通环节和在抓捕环节被抓的犯人如果不是同一批人,那么,将交警调走,前段口子松开,那么就给后端造成更大的抓捕压力,所以加强了。。是我过度解读了吗。。
调工作---控制严重的犯罪 削弱
A officer有危险 无关
B 公众将会不遵守交通规则 和犯罪无关
C 犯人不愿意遵守他们认为宽松的交通法律。。那么人都被调走了 自然放纵了犯罪,削弱
D 两批人不一样 无关
E 大部分不遵守交通规则的人没罪 无法削弱
observe 遵守的意思
错因 原文没读懂 .....
错选B,但是B选项中没有提到警察执法的问题。
个人理解是要把上述两件事串联起来
confrontation对抗、面对、对峙。C选项“重罪犯在犯罪时不会原意遵守那些看起来约束比较少的交通法则”。换而言之,即是重罪犯会违反交通规则,因而会被交通管制人员逮捕,对argument其增强作用。
C的支持是
(那些愿意犯严重罪的人经常不愿意遵守他们看起来有较少约束的交通法)
如果用白话说就是
重罪犯一般作案时,根本不屌交通规则。
这个补充很完美:
重罪犯在作案时会违反交通,这样交警就会把他们拦下来了。完美地补上了逻辑链中的一个假设。
答案C如果写这个白话“重罪犯一般作案时,根本不屌交通规则。”,题目难度就会降低一些。出题者有意把这个支持一般化(abstraction, generalization),这样如果你没有办法看清其中的指代关系,就觉得这个没什么关系。大家应该多熟悉些这种一般化的说法。看玩笑时想想怎样把简单的事,搞得高大上。是一个道理。答案看到这种明显一般化的选项,一定要多读多想一下。
c:那些打破法律实施犯罪的人不愿意在实施犯罪的时候遵守那些被他们认为是不重要的交通法律;
因此,他们有很大程度会因为不遵守交通法规而被交警逮捕。增强!
A. If anything, this risk of violence might discourage traffic enforcement officers from
stopping and searching as many cars, thus reducing their effectiveness at
preventing serious crimes.
C. Correct. This suggests that people committing serious crimes often commit traffic
violations as well, increasing the likelihood that traffic enforcement officers will
stop and search their cars and find evidence of those crimes.
AC纠结;A读的懂 C读不懂;C中的unwilling是修饰啥的?句意好模糊啊
还是人吧,把中间插入的often in committing such crimes移走会清晰些
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论