During the recent spate of brushfires in the Southwest, homeowners who lived near affected areas were advised to douse their roofs with water to prevent their houses from catching fire before evacuating the area. After the fires were brought under control and the homeowners were allowed to return to the area, many who doused their roofs discovered significant fire damage to their houses. Clearly, then, dousing their roofs was a wasted effort.
Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the conclusion above?
题目讨论
- 按热度
- 按顺序
guiguoguo
1：削弱
2：逻辑链douse 的人仍然发现自己家的房子有很大的损失 -- 所以douse没有用（douse是利用水来防火）
3：推理：虽然douse的人的房子有很大的损失，但是是有用的
这里做一个情景假设，假设自己是有douse的人，这个douse的好处可能是
（1）可能是其他的损失减少了，（2）可能是相对于没有douse的人的房间来说，damage的更少
4：选项：
A符合（2）
B无关
C 保险率和逻辑链无关
D who remained and continuous；后面的这个continuous是个无关信息，题目中的论述对象就是有douse 的房间
E 无关，和逻辑链无关
JFK 回复 坞名氏
第一类房子（houses of owners who did not douse the roofs 根本没浇水的房子，人直接撤）第二类房子（houses of owners who did douse the roofs 浇水的房子，浇完再撤）第三类（houses of owners remained and continuously doused the roofs 一直在浇水的房子，屋主死守）文章说的是前两类房子。为削弱结论，正确答案思路应该是：浇水不是白费力气，也没有浪费宝贵的逃生时间，浇水是有用的。D选项说的是浇水的房子中比较特殊的一部分，不足以代表整体削弱文章结论。如果选D，受损最轻的是一直不断浇水的房子，那么其他浇了水的房子还是有可能受损严重，和不浇水的房子一样烧成废墟，也就是说：浇水没用，所以D不能削弱结论。选A的话，第三类房子是包括在第二类里面的，可以削弱结论。