[問題] 一題邏輯題

[ghtmmm (聖艾修伯里)]

Senator: Jones is highly qualified for appointment as a judge, as evidenced
by Jones's receiving a unanimous vote of "qualified" on the formal rating
scale used by the Lawyers' Committee. That committee advises the Senate on
judicial appointments.

Which of the following, if true, is the best reason for dismissing the
senator's claim that Jones is highly qualified?
(A) Several members of the Lawyers' Committee are not themselves qualified for
judicial appointments.

(B) The Lawyers' Committee does not advise the Senate on all judicial
appointments.

(C) The Lawyers' Committee gives a unanimous vote of "qualified" only to those
candidates for judicial appointments who meet the committee's stringent
standards for appropriate prior experience and ethical conduct.

(D) The Lawyers' Committee gives a unanimous vote of either "highly qualified"
or "very highly qualified" to 95 percent of all candidates for judicial
appointments.

(E) Jones, like most lawyers, is a member of the professional organization that
originally suggested the establishment of the Lawyers' Committee.

這題是考weaken,答案D
可是真的搞不太懂

--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc), 來自: 60.248.4.126
※ 文章網址: https://www.ptt.cc/bbs/GRE/M.1432040940.A.DF1.html
推 Collier     : 我猜，因為題目要不鳥Jones is highly qualified的
→ Collier     : 理由，因為Committee的評價都亂給，所以沒鑑別度(可
→ Collier     : 不鳥)
推 chenfafa    : 我也猜jones到as a judge是果 所以不動 之後的是因
→ chenfafa    :  所以攻因 abce都無關