ChaseDream

标题: [求助]GWD 11-30 [打印本页]

---

作者: singledream    时间: 2006-7-13 05:25
标题: [求助]GWD 11-30

Q30 C

Editorial:

 

In Ledland, unemployed adults receive government assistance.  To reduce unemployment, the government proposes to supplement the income of those who accept jobs that pay less than government assistance, thus enabling employers to hire workers cheaply.  However, the supplement will not raise any worker’s income above what government assistance would provide if he or she were not gainfully employed.  Therefore, unemployed people will have no financial incentive to accept jobs that would entitle them to the supplement.

 

Which of the following, if true about Ledland, most seriously weakens the argument of the editorial?

 

1. The government collects no taxes on assistance it provides to unemployed individuals and their families.
2. Neighboring countries with laws that mandate the minimum wage an employer must pay an employee have higher unemployment rates than Ledland currently has.
3. People who are employed and look for a new job tend to get higher-paying jobs than job seekers who are unemployed.
4. The yearly amount unemployed people receive from government assistance is less than the yearly income that the government defines as the poverty level.
5. People sometimes accept jobs that pay relatively little simply because they enjoy the work.

答案是C，哪位高手给分析一下。多谢。。。

---

作者: mbz    时间: 2006-7-13 10:47

The argument says that unemployed people will have no financial incentive to accept jobs that would entitle them to the supplement.

However, what C means is that when you currently have a low-paid job, but want to look for another one, the potiential employer would like to pay you more than to pay another person who currently doesn't have a job.

Hence,  "people who are employed and look for a new job tend to get higher-paying jobs than job seekers who are unemployed"  weakens the argument, and C is the correct answer.

[此贴子已经被作者于2006-7-13 10:48:40编辑过]

---

作者: qingqinghu    时间: 2006-7-13 12:25

不是高手,说说我的想法.

题目意思:

无业者有救济金,政府为减少 unemployment,准备补充收入低于救济金的工作者的收入.但是这种补充并不能提高工作者的工资到超过无业者的救济金的程度.因此无业者就没有经济利益导致的冲动去接受可以享受这种补充收入的工作了.

问,如何才能weaken

  C  已经有工作的人换工作相对没有工作的人找工作可以得到更高的工资.

也就是说,先工作着,再换一个可以得到更多的工资.那么一个无业者先找到一个工作,无论是多少钱的,下一份工作就可以更多钱了.

相比而言,这个选项最好.

---

作者: singledream    时间: 2006-7-13 14:12

多谢!

[此贴子已经被作者于2006-7-13 14:14:13编辑过]

---

作者: missgmat    时间: 2006-12-7 04:14

good! thanks a lot!

---

作者: adpang    时间: 2006-12-8 00:31
有工作经验才能找到好工作。

---

作者: chamcham    时间: 2007-6-27 14:08

以下是引用adpang在2006-12-8 0:31:00的发言：
有工作经验才能找到好工作。

exactly, so C

---

作者: singdeath    时间: 2008-10-9 21:59

    

The line of
reasoning is that:

    

Currently
unemployed people: can only get jobs with wages lower than the government assistance

    

Government:
gainfully employed è give supplement

    

Editorial:
The currently unemployed people have no financial incentive to find a job

    

(= These
people would just take government assistance because they think that they
cannot find a gainful job to satisfy the government prerequisite for a supplement)

    

Choice C
provides a financial incentive: if people are aware that they can go on looking
for another job with higher wages after they accept the low-wage job at first, these
people would probably be motivated to look for a job, even one with a low wage.

    

---

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

Powered by Discuz! X3.3