ChaseDream

标题: gwd-12-11 [打印本页]

作者: sandyclub 时间: 2004-10-16 21:27
标题: gwd-12-11

GWD-12-Q11:

In general, jobs are harder to get in times of economic recession because many businesses cut back operations. However, any future recessions in Vargonia will probably not reduce the availability of teaching jobs at government-funded schools. This is because Vargonia has just introduced a legal requirement that education in government-funded schools be available, free of charge, to all Vargonian children regardless of the state of the economy, and that current student-teacher ratios not be exceeded.

Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?

The current student-teacher ratio at Vargonia’s government-funded schools is higher than it was during the most recent period of economic recession.

During recent periods when the Vargonian economy has been strong, almost 25 percent of Vargonian children have attended privately funded schools, many of which charge substantial fees.

Nearly 20 percent more teachers are currently employed in Vargonia’s government-funded schools than had been employed in those schools in the period before the last economic recession.

Teachers in Vargonia’s government-funded schools are well paid relative to teachers in most privately funded schools in Vargonia, many of which rely heavily on part-time teachers.

During the last economic recession in Vargonia, the government permanently closed a number of the schools that it had funded.

Answer:B

为什么不是C？

C说这次的recession反而多了20%的老师。不是顶有道理的呼应了政府的好策略吗？！

B说经济强壮后，25%学生去上私立学校。（这跟题目有什么关系啊…）

救我…

作者: sandyclub 时间: 2004-10-16 21:44

12-11 http://forum.chasedream.com/dispbbs.asp?BoardID=24&ID=54938

找到讨论稿了谢谢

作者: lawyer_1 时间: 2004-10-16 21:45
C说的是现在（并不是这次的RECESSION）的老师就业比上次RECESSION前的就业多20%。对原文结论不起任何作用。因为你不知上次RECESSION老师就业情况。B说是最近经济好时25%学生去读私立学校，付高昂的学费，这样将来RECESSION时，就有可能这些学生中的一部分因付不起高昂的学费而去读公立学校，使学生和老师比例更大，对老师的需求也大。从而加强结论：将来RECESSION是公立学校老师不会失业。

作者: greeley 时间: 2005-1-15 14:04
lawyer 的解释实在是精辟啊~ 捆扰了我一天的题目终于明白了

作者: 古镯 时间: 2005-2-8 04:21

以下是引用lawyer_1在2004-10-16 21:45:00的发言：
C说的是现在（并不是这次的RECESSION）的老师就业比上次RECESSION前的就业多20%。对原文结论不起任何作用。因为你不知上次RECESSION老师就业情况。B说是最近经济好时25%学生去读私立学校，付高昂的学费，这样将来RECESSION时，就有可能这些学生中的一部分因付不起高昂的学费而去读公立学校，使学生和老师比例更大，对老师的需求也大。从而加强结论：将来RECESSION是公立学校老师不会失业。

精辟！

作者: scorpio0001 时间: 2005-3-16 13:43
lawyer and mindfree-- 我们的偶像！

作者: tqbiao 时间: 2005-3-22 20:38
up

作者: jaguar 时间: 2005-4-7 08:09

每次做到头疼的ｌｏｇｉｃ，都要找ｌａｗｙｅｒ，真想克隆他的脑细胞，

谢谢谢谢！

作者: 妞妞的牛牛 时间: 2005-4-7 18:14

以下是引用jaguar在2005-4-7 8:09:00的发言：

每次做到头疼的ｌｏｇｉｃ，都要找ｌａｗｙｅｒ，真想克隆他的脑细胞，

谢谢谢谢！

真想到一块儿去了

我逻辑题死活搞不懂，少根筋啊

作者: WalkByFaith 时间: 2005-7-29 23:14

In C, it doesn’t matter whether it is known that ‘上次RECESSION老师就业情况’ because we at least know ‘就业多20%’ which tells the number of teaches is growing up. Actually, C is wrong because it doen’t show the trend of ‘future’ which is the main argument in the context.

作者: paxlin 时间: 2006-6-24 17:58

看完题干，满脑子就想的是找一个选项说学生要在经济不好时增加就行了，这样为了保持学生老师比例，老师一定要保持大于等于现在的水平，可是没想到看了选项反而糊涂了，直接选了A，再回头看才明白只有B说出了学生要增加- 考试时一定要保持头脑清醒啊

作者: timsky2000 时间: 2006-7-16 14:34
一开始就把B当无关删掉了，觉得讲私立有什么用哦.不过B也太不直接了吧?去私立学校的都是有钱人，可能没受到经济衰退的影响呢?可能人家不去上学了,在家里家教可以吧?感觉是个either-or的错误,不去私立就一定要去公立.人家老美没义务教育吧?

作者: Gersh 时间: 2006-10-16 16:44

以下是引用timsky2000在2006-7-16 14:34:00的发言：
一开始就把B当无关删掉了，觉得讲私立有什么用哦.不过B也太不直接了吧?去私立学校的都是有钱人，可能没受到经济衰退的影响呢?可能人家不去上学了,在家里家教可以吧?感觉是个either-or的错误,不去私立就一定要去公立.人家老美没义务教育吧?

这逻辑。。。。

作者: 罗马青年 时间: 2007-6-15 02:19

我的观点和Mindfree一致，呵呵！

因为题目原文明确指出：students/teachers 的比率不能超出，

又断言未来老师的工作机会不会减少，则：如要满足断言中分母未来t >=目前数量的话，s /t 是正比例关系，则只有分子S 未来的数量>=目前数量。带着这个思路寻找答案，只有B满足：S的数量未来可能增加；即使这些私立学校的学生不去公立学校，原来的s/t不变即可，教师就维持原状，也不会失业（符合原文 not reduce jobs的断言）；

A：s /t现在的比率比过去高，对将来s是否增加无法作出判断，无关；

C：现在t的数量比过去高，对将来s是否增加无法作出判断，无关；

D：无关；

E：可能削弱；过去经济衰退会关闭学校，可能会减少教师职位，教师失业；

作者: tangzimo 时间: 2007-10-22 14:23
说得好

作者: sch 时间: 2007-10-23 10:21
的观点和Mindfree一致，呵呵！

因为题目原文明确指出：students/teachers 的比率不能超出，

A：s /t现在的比率比过去高，对将来s是否增加无法作出判断，无关；

C：现在t的数量比过去高，对将来s是否增加无法作出判断，无关；

D：无关；

E：可能削弱；过去经济衰退会关闭学校，可能会减少教师职位，教师失业；

****************

我就是被上面最后1个条件给绕进去了,选了A,

最后说 students/teachers比例不能超出,我设这个比例是100,"不能超出"就是不能大于100啦.所以就往反方向去找了.......

关键看怎么理解这个exceeded了.....

作者: lulu_odin 时间: 2008-3-3 21:33
B是逆否吧

作者: smilingalone 时间: 2008-5-4 21:08

每次看到LAWYER的解释就懂了~~爱死你了

作者: shirley8707 时间: 2008-5-14 12:17
这道题目加强的是不会减少政府集资的学校的教师数目，b是从反向证明公共学校取学生多，然后public教师人数多。

作者: jasmine113 时间: 2008-6-19 10:40

MY opinion：

In the passage, the conclusion needed support is that "any future recessions in Vargonia will probably not reduce the availability of teaching jobs at government-funded schools". The reason for it is:

1. Government-funded schools free of charge --- money issue;

2. Current student-teacher ratios not be exceeded --- students and teachers' number issue, R=S/T must be kept unchanged.

In the light of the reasons, B exactly related the money issue and the number issue, by indicating that in time of recession, 25% of V children would go to public school because of money issue, and that this fact will lead to the flutuation of R=S/T. When S increases, the government will increase T in order to keep R in balance.

D, maybe it mentions the current situation of R=S/T, however, it's not related to "reason 1- free of charge, the moey issue". What's more, the current ratio of S and T can't garantee anything in the future when there is a recession.

[此贴子已经被作者于2008-6-19 10:40:51编辑过]

作者: MinyiSu888 时间: 2008-8-15 16:13
that the current student-teacher ratios not be exceeded,请问是什么意思啊？

作者: maomm 时间: 2008-8-19 10:22
re

作者: SuccessMBA08 时间: 2008-8-29 22:48
好题，lawyer分析的也太好了！终于明白了！

作者: carriexu 时间: 2008-11-25 21:39
~~

作者: akiluk 时间: 2010-11-14 15:34

的观点和Mindfree一致，呵呵！因为题目原文明确指出：students/teachers 的比率不能超出，
又断言未来老师的工作机会不会减少，则：如要满足断言中分母未来t >=目前数量的话，s /t 是正比例关系，则只有分子S 未来的数量>=目前数量。带着这个思路寻找答案，只有B满足：S的数量未来可能增加；即使这些私立学校的学生不去公立学校，原来的s/t不变即可，教师就维持原状，也不会失业（符合原文 not reduce jobs的断言）；
A：s /t现在的比率比过去高，对将来s是否增加无法作出判断，无关；
C：现在t的数量比过去高，对将来s是否增加无法作出判断，无关；
D：无关；
E：可能削弱；过去经济衰退会关闭学校，可能会减少教师职位，教师失业；

****************
我就是被上面最后1个条件给绕进去了,选了A,
最后说 students/teachers比例不能超出,我设这个比例是100,"不能超出"就是不能大于100啦.所以就往反方向去找了.......

关键看怎么理解这个exceeded了.....

-- by 会员 sch (2007/10/23 10:21:00)

题目是current student-teacher ratios not be exceeded.意思是被超出喔~ 不是超出~大家小心！

作者: jaze 时间: 2011-3-20 16:02

B

MY opinion：

In the passage, the conclusion needed support is that "any future recessions in Vargonia will probably not reduce the availability of teaching jobs at government-funded schools". The reason for it is:

1. Government-funded schools free of charge --- money issue;

2. Current student-teacher ratios not be exceeded --- students and teachers' number issue, R=S/T must be kept unchanged.

In the light of the reasons, B exactly related the money issue and the number issue, by indicating that in time of recession, 25% of V children would go to public school because of money issue, and that this fact will lead to the flutuation of R=S/T. When S increases, the government will increase T in order to keep R in balance.

D, maybe it mentions the current situation of R=S/T, however, it's not related to "reason 1- free of charge, the moey issue". What's more, the current ratio of S and T can't garantee anything in the future when there is a recession.

[此贴子已经被作者于2008-6-19 10:40:51编辑过]

-- by 会员 jasmine113 (2008/6/19 10:40:00)

well done

作者: lala974 时间: 2011-7-15 04:05
我来考古，谢谢lawyer大神

欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/)