The violent crime rate (number of violent crimes per 1,000 residents) in Meadowbrook is 60 percent higher now than it was four years ago. The corresponding increase for Parkdale is only 10 percent. These figures support the conclusion that residents of Meadowbrook are more likely to become victims of violent crime than are residents of Parkdale. The argument above is flawed because it fails to take into account A. Changes in the population density of both Meadowbrook and Parkdale over the past four years. B. How the rate of population growth in Meadowbrook over the past four years compares to the corresponding rate for Parkdale C. The ratio of violent to nonviolent crimes committed during the past four years in Meadowbrook and Parkdale D. The violent crime rates in Meadowbrook and Parkdale four years ago E. How Meadowbrooks’ expenditures for crime prevention over the past four years compare to Parkdale’s expenditures. 答案是D 我对A选项有疑问 之前做了几题这种比例变化的问题 发现很多都是没考虑到base(也就是分母)导致结论被weaken 那为什麽这题用D就可以解释了??? 如果说者两个地方的人口数不同 则结论好像也不会成立阿 有人可以帮忙解惑 一下吗 谢谢罗!! --

※ 发信站: 批踢踢实业坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 123.194.203.188 ※ 编辑: filley 来自: 123.194.203.188 (10/25 22:16)