想問大大們一個有點無厘頭的問題：
Pretzel vendor: The new license fee for operating a pretzel stand outside the
art museum is prohibitively expensive. Charging typical prices, a vendor
would need to sell an average of 25 pretzels per hour to break even. At my
stand outside city hall, I average only 15 per hour. Therefore, I could not
break even running a pretzel stand outside the art museum, much less turn a
profit.
Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the pretzel vendor's
argument?
A. There is currently no license fee for operating a pretzel stand outside
city hall.
B. Pretzel vendors who operate stands outside the art museum were making a
profit before the imposition of the new license fee.
C. The number of pretzel stands outside the art museum is no greater than the
number of pretzel standsnow outside city hall.
D. People who buy pretzels at pretzel stands are most likely to do so during
the hours at which the art museum is open to the
E. Fewer people passing the art museum than passing city hall are to buy
pretzels.
查CD發現同胞的說法是：
第一句是 Premise
The new license fee for operating a pretzel stand outside the art museum is prohibitively expensive.
第二及第三句是 Evidence
Charging typical prices, a vendor would need to sell an average of 25 pretzels
per hour to break even. At my stand outside city hall, I average only 15 per
hour.
第四句是 Conclusion
Therefore, I could not break even running a pretzel stand outside the art
museum, much less turn a profit.
我看的時候把第一句理解為conclusion，認為too expensive是小販主觀的想法，小販先說
他認為貴得不合理，再解釋他的觀點由來：evidence(fact)：打平低標v.s. 在美術館擺攤
能賣到的數量不及低標，第四句therefore是針對第二、三句，說所以他在美術館外擺攤總
虧錢。(所以小販認為收的fee貴得不合理：回到第一句總結論)
問題：哪句話可以support小販的論點 = 以他的經驗(那些fact)，新的fee貴得不合理。
注意到第四句話：在美術館擺攤總虧錢 跟 第一句話：fee貴得不合理 之間的support
選了(B)，小販在新的fee實施之前是能賺錢的。(imply新的fee不合理)
但答案是(E)唷。
如果按照CD的同胞們的解釋法就很清楚了，
但想請教有沒有大大可以提示我的上述邏輯哪裡有瑕疵，謝謝。
(為什麼conclusion不能是這樣想的呢？我覺得很有既視感啊XD 很像隨時會電視上看到的
攤販訪問)
先謝過大大們>"<