A moderately large city is redesigning its central downtown area and is considering a plan that would reduce the number of lanes for automobiles and trucks and increase those for bicycles and pedestrians. The intent is to attract more workers and shoppers to downtown businesses by making downtown easier to reach and more pleasant to move around in.
Which of the following would, if true, most strongly support the prediction that the plan would achieve its goal?
People who make a habit of walking or bicycling whenever feasible derive significant health benefits from doing so.
Most people who prefer to shop at suburban malls instead of downtown urban areas do so because parking is easier and cheaper at the former.
In other moderately sized cities where measures were taken to make downtowns more accessible for walkers and cyclists, downtown businesses began to thrive.
If the proposed lane restrictions on drivers are rigorously enforced, more people will likely be attracted to downtown businesses than would otherwise be.
Most people who own and frequently ride bicycles for recreational purposes live at a significant distance from downtown urban areas.
但原文中并没有任何关于执行此restriction的严格程度的信息
是不是674题 感觉很像登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论
D选项的问题在于,这是一个在 rigorously enforced(严格执行)为前提下所产生的结果
但原文中并没有任何关于执行此restriction的严格程度的信息
注意这些表示【程度】的词语会有助于排除选项!
不是限制司机,而是减少机动车道数量。
D只是重复了原文,仍旧in the scope,且与其他方式是无关比较
D选项的意思是,严厉执行比otherwise(不严厉执行)要吸引更多人,关于严厉与不严厉的比较与原文无关登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论
D:原文减少lanes增加自行车道 人行道,D限制drivers
E:住得远的大多人都有并且经常骑单车。因为距离远,所以改善交通 他们也不一定来。
且D是一个在 rigorously enforced(严格执行)为前提下所产生的结果
但原文中并没有任何关于执行此restriction的严格程度的信息
其实好像其他题目里面扯到他国怎么样一般都是无关选项,因为不一定适用于本国。
这里可能是对比选项来吧,在这种题目里,需要把他国类比的说服力放在重复前提之前
答1:有个城市这样做了,商场客流增加了。——ok。
答2:如果把车道改了,商场客流就会增加。——答非所问;支持/削弱一定会引入外部信息,只有外部信息才能对argument产生支持/削弱作用。
【D选项的问题有两个,第一是重复前提,说方案被执行,就会有人来,但是没有对方案的可行性或者可操作性进行加强,相当于说了句废话;第二,并不需要把改善交通的举措和其他的举措进行比较,这个不是讨论方案会不会成不成功的点】
重复前提,相当于废话。
已知的比预测的更有说服力