55. Low-income families are often unable to afford as much child care as they need. One government program would award low-income families a refund on the income taxes they pay of as much as $1,000 for each child under age four. This program would make it possible for all low-income families with children under age four to obtain more child care than they otherwise would have been able to afford.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously calls into question the claim that the program would make it possible for all low-income families to obtain more child care?
(A) The average family with children under age four spends more than $1,000 a year on child care.
(B) Some low-income families in which one of the parents is usually available to care for children under age four may not want to spend their income tax refund on child care.
(C) The reduction in government revenues stemming from the income tax refund will necessitate cuts in other government programs, such as grants for higher education.
(D) Many low-income families with children under age four do not pay any income taxes because their total income is too low to be subject to such taxes.
(E) Income taxes have increased substantially over the past 20 years, reducing the money that low-income families have available to spend on child care.
B Although the money is to be in the form of a refund that could be spent however the family wished, it is the availability of additional money that is the point of the claim. .
无法理解B.
既然这个programe的目的就是improve children care,如果说Low-income families 不把这笔钱用于children care.这项programe不就没有达到目的吗?
既然这个programe的目的就是improve children care,如果说Low-income families 不把这笔钱用于children care.这项programe不就没有达到目的吗?
注意B答案中： may not want to spend their income tax refund on child care.
既然是may not want，那么就可以may want，这个答案本身的论断就不严谨。
B应该怎么理解呢？ 为什么不对啊
我觉得some的削弱效果不好，如果是most效果就好了。 比较BD两个选项B中some want而 D是many do not pay any,所以d选项更好。
个人 感觉 D也起到了 削弱的作用 很多人不交INCOME TAX 就没机会得到CHILD CARE了呀
呵呵 菜鸟 献丑
本文有两个假设：1至少有1000的taxes,2 1000用于childcare 而1又是2的前提，所以1的削弱作用更好！
B does not weaken, as some people may want to, some may not want to.
The answer to this question could strengthen, and could also weaken.
結論This program would make it possible for all low-income families with children under age four to obtain more child care than they otherwise would have been able to afford.
是在argue该计划能够帮助所有低收入家庭增加对于托儿所的负担能力，make it possible是在讨论可能性。 OG的解释是The claim is made that the program will allow all low-income families to obtain more child care.
所以不是因果结论。所以否定低收入家庭会选择child care够不成削弱
假如结论改成This program would make all low-income families with children under age four to obtain more child care than they otherwise would have been able toafford.
则应该构成削弱
菜鸟看法。文中说的是开始这些家庭unable to afford。所以政府通过税收返还款使得家庭able to afford。所以主要问题就在于政府的做法是继续unable还是转而able呢？也就是能不能得到这样一笔资金是本文的重心。所以D最好。
| 欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/) | Powered by Discuz! X3.3 |