想问大大们一个有点无厘头的问题：
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发现同胞的说法是：
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.
我看的时候把第一句理解为conclusion，认为too expensive是小贩主观的想法，小贩先说
他认为贵得不合理，再解释他的观点由来：evidence(fact)：打平低标v.s. 在美术馆摆摊
能卖到的数量不及低标，第四句therefore是针对第二、三句，说所以他在美术馆外摆摊总
亏钱。(所以小贩认为收的fee贵得不合理：回到第一句总结论)
问题：哪句话可以support小贩的论点 = 以他的经验(那些fact)，新的fee贵得不合理。
注意到第四句话：在美术馆摆摊总亏钱 跟 第一句话：fee贵得不合理 之间的support
选了(B)，小贩在新的fee实施之前是能赚钱的。(imply新的fee不合理)
但答案是(E)唷。
如果按照CD的同胞们的解释法就很清楚了，
但想请教有没有大大可以提示我的上述逻辑哪里有瑕疵，谢谢。
(为什么conclusion不能是这样想的呢？我觉得很有既视感啊XD 很像随时会电视上看到的
摊贩访问)
先谢过大大们>"<