Q：Kernland imposes a high tariff on the export of unprocessed cashew nuts in order to
ensure that the nuts are sold to domestic processing plants. If the tariff were lifted and
unprocessed cashews were sold at world market prices, more farmers could profit by
growing cashews. However, since all the processing plants are in urban areas, removing
the tariff would seriously hamper the government’s effort to reduce urban unemployment
over the next five years.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?
A. Some of the by-products of processing cashews are used for manufacturing paints
and plastics.
B. Other countries in which cashews are processed subsidize their processing plants.
C. More people in Kernland are engaged in farming cashews than in processing them.
D. Buying unprocessed cashews at lower than world market prices enables cashew
processors in Kernland to sell processed nuts at competitive prices.
E. A lack of profitable crops is driving an increasing number of small farmers in
Kernland off their land and into the cities.
请问为何选E?小弟选的是C
在C和E之间有疑问，哪位NN解释一下。
E is correct b/c it says that: if the tariff is not lifted, the farmers will not make any money because they still have to pay for the tariff. As a result, the farmer will give up farming and will go to look for jobs in the city area. The city's unemployment rate will go even higher in the future.
The original argument worries that by lifting the tariff, unemployment rate will go higher, but E says that either case you are not going to reduce the unemployment rate. However, if you don't lift it right now, the unemployment rate will be even worse.
C似乎就算對 也是對UMEMPLOYMENT的解釋不大 不直接
E的話 因為缺乏利潤驅使很多人在進入市區 而這些人是off thier land 的無工作者
更增加了城市的失業率 應該是這樣~~
C显然不对，这是一个非常弱的argue，E上面的朋友已经解释，实际上是利用假设反推出weaken的结论的。
还是E好，而且，我觉得做过很多类似的题，都有类似C这样不痛不嚷的选项！
| 欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/) | Powered by Discuz! X3.3 |