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?
The exhaust from Palitito's few automobiles is not a significant threat to Palitito's buildings.
Palitito's Renaissance buildings are not threatened by pollution other than engine exhaust.
Tour buses typically spend less than one-quarter of the time they are in Palitito transporting passengers from one site to another.
More tourists come to Palitito by tour bus than by any other single means of transportation.
Some of the tour buses that are unable to find parking drive around Palitito while their passengers are visiting a site.
旅游巴士在帕利蒂托把乘客从一个地方运送到另一个地方的时间通常不到四分之一。——说明bus大部分时间被迫等客idling.——有停车场减少idling,从而减少bus 的排放
D.原结论是the buses' exhaust will diminish ,与其他交通工具无关
加强
A、🚌没那么破坏环境,反原文
B、引擎破坏环境,与闲逛、车位无关
C、🚌运输客人的时间不超过1/4,则其闲逛的时间(暗示可以停在车位的时间)高达3/4,有车位是有意义的,CORRECT
D、有更多人乘坐🚌来玩,与闲逛、车位无关
E、🚌找不见车位,削弱
可行性强登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论
C说1/4的时间运乘客,意思是大部分时间都是游荡的
ABD无关可以排除。对比CE,E只是原原本本地解释了上文的P被damage的原因。Buses have no place to park while their passengers are visiting in P. 不涉及任何有关解决方案:新增parking能解决buses的idle问题,所以其实E也是无关选项。
E.Some
D:关键在于bus 正在污染环境,而不在于巴士载了多少乘客;具体地说,加入旅游观光巴士的路线数量每天都是固定的,那么乘客不管搭乘与否,巴士都照样会开,照样污染环境;题中没有说,乘客乘得多,巴士数量才会多,如果乘客数目再多,巴士数量也固定,那么D选项就无关了
而修停车场只能减少1/3大巴idling的尾气,答案要说明,这部分是显著的
exhaust排放 idle空转 curb马路牙子
总尾气=idling+driving 修停车场只能减少idling的尾气
D说明 两者比例问题,idle 占比大,更能解决问题
挂空挡~~~登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论
bus花1/4更少的时间来运输乘客。
CS:那么,路上和暂停时排放的尾气都减少了,加强。
choice c, 大巴运输乘客的时间只有1/4.言下之意大巴花了3/4的时间在漫无目的idle。correct