三節大卡車
【原始】
一小我說三節大卡車平日比慣例卡車的交通變亂傷亡更慘烈,另外一小我說三節大卡車的變亂產生率其實不比一樣平常卡車的高。
問第二小我的概念最輕易被如下哪個進擊。
【考古】
In the nation of Partoria, large trucks currently account for 6 percent of miles driven on Partoria's roads but are involved in 12 percent of all highway fatalities. The very largest trucks-those with three trailers-had less than a third of the accident rate of single-and double-trailer trucks. Clearly, therefore, one way for Partoria to reduce highway deaths would be to require shippers to increase their use of triple-trailer trucks.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?
【選項】Partorian trucking companies have so far used triple-trailer trucks on lightly traveled sections of major highways only.
邏輯鏈:F:在P這個國度,大型卡車平日占到百分之六的路上行駛的車,然則只觸及百分之十二的全部高速公路舉措措施。 P:三輪卡車比單輪及雙輪卡車的變亂率要低三分之一。 C:削減高速公路滅亡率的一個辦法便是請求貨主增長對三輪卡車的應用。 我認為這個題作者混雜了一個觀點,便是變亂率與滅亡率之間的幹系。和分歧路段的變亂率應當是分歧的。以是假如想要減弱原文,只要解釋換了三輪卡車也不會削減滅亡率,說明清晰這個就能夠了。 這個選項說的是卡車公司只在lightly traveled 路段應用三輪卡車,那末就部門不克不及解釋團體。在這個路段三輪卡車的變亂率低,不代表在其他或全部路段的變亂率也低。