ChaseDream

标题: ＧＷＤ－１２－１１　关于Ｂ和Ｄ [打印本页]

作者: alanis_liu 时间: 2007-4-18 09:09
标题: ＧＷＤ－１２－１１　关于Ｂ和Ｄ

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: D（B）

这个题有好多帖子，都看花眼了，好像最后还是没有定论，我一开始也是选了D，但是还是觉得B更合适

仔细阅读题干可以发现，题干的核心是在讨论the availability of teaching jobs，所以，答案应该跟这个有关，而不是教师的工资多少阿什么的，ｂ和ｃ都说得了这个，但是Ｃ，before the last economic recession范围太窄，不严禁，ｂｅｆｏｒｅ的时候到底怎么样不知道，ｌａｓｔ也不具备普遍意义

不知道大家认为如何？

作者: oyoungpku 时间: 2007-4-18 13:34

这题答案我不太确定,但觉得D无关,能排除CE.

首先,这题的conclusion,是any future recessions in Vargonia will probably not reduce the availability of teaching jobs at government-funded schools ,

C项偷换了一个概念,就是teachers are currently employed 与the availability of teaching jobs的偷换.

E项与legal requirement违背,至多只能提供削弱.

[此贴子已经被作者于2007-4-22 2:17:18编辑过]

作者: alanis_liu 时间: 2007-4-18 14:01

我觉得时间顺序有问题，不能拿current的比例和过去经济萧条事情的ratio比较，要比也是拿current跟以后经济萧条时候的ratio比。

简单来说：过去萧条--〉现在不萧条--〉未来萧条

应该是现在的跟未来的比较，如果现在的学生老师ratio没有超过未来萧条时候的ratio，那么才是加强，A现在的跟过去的比，没有可比性阿？因为过去的萧条是因为更过去的事情导致的，跟current没有关系

不知道我说的大家能不能理解？

[此贴子已经被作者于2007-4-18 14:02:46编辑过]

作者: oyoungpku 时间: 2007-4-18 14:46

可是未来是尚未发生的啊

[此贴子已经被作者于2007-4-22 2:16:09编辑过]

作者: nanjef2 时间: 2007-4-21 03:22
B
Currenty, 25% students go to private schools which are very expensive. At the time of recession, many of those 25% students may go back to public shcool. Given the principle that current student-teacher ratios not be exceeded, more students come, more teachers will be needed. So teaching jobs will not be reduced even in the time of recession.

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