作者：英吉
Editorial: The roof of Northtown Council’s equipment-storage building collapsed under the weight of last week’s heavy snowfall. The building was constructed recently and met local building-safety codes in every particular, except that the nails used for attaching roof supports to the building’s columns were of a smaller size than the codes specify for this purpose. Clearly, this collapse exemplifies how even a single, apparently insignificant, departure from safety standards can have severe consequences.
Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the editorial’s argument?
A. The only other buildings whose roofs collapsed from the weight of the snowfall were older buildings constructed according to less exacting standards than those in the safety codes.
B. Because of the particular location of the equipment-storage building, the weight of snow on its roof was greater than the maximum weight allowed for in the safety codes.
C. Because the equipment-storage building was not intended for human occupation, some safety-code provisions that would have applied to an office building did not apply to it.
D. The columns of the building were no stronger than the building-safety codes required for such a building.
E. Because the equipment-storage building was where the council kept snow-removal equipment, the building was almost completely empty when the roof collapsed.
Answer:
题目分析：A说有一个类似的例子就是因为不符合标准导致被雪压垮，明显属于指桑“夸”槐的，和有一道题目正确答案说的是in finland一样道理。B说雪量多少是否超过安全标准，文章谈的是建筑物设计标准，不是雪量的标准，杀。C说由于不是给人住的，这个建筑物没有采用一些办公室的建筑标准，这个办公室的建筑标准和原文那个安全标准有什么关系？没说，不知道，需要发散，杀。D说这个建筑物的柱子不会比超出标准，有可能符合标准（和标准一样strong也可能低于标准），自己都没说准，怎么能和原文建立必然关系，需要发散的错误答案，杀。E说当建筑物塌陷的时候里面没有人，扯的比较远了，杀！
