ChaseDream

标题: 请教大全-10-10,大全-10-15 [打印本页]

---

作者: joywzy    时间: 2003-4-22 16:46
标题: 请教大全-10-10,大全-10-15
10. Any tax relief received by the solar industry would
not benefit the homeowner who installs a solar-
energy system. Even though homeowners would pay
a lower price for solar-energy system installations
because of this tax relief, with the government
paying the balance, government revenues come from
the public.

The argument above is based on which of the
following assumptions?

(A) The tax relief would cause the homeowner to
lose, through taxes or reduced government
benefits or both, an amount at least equal to
the reduction in the price of that home-
owner's solar-energy system installation.
(B) The tax relief that would be received by solar-
energy industries would not be offered at the
same time as any tax relief for other indus-
tries.
(C) Advertisements of the solar-energy industry, by
failing to identify the source of government
revenues explicitly to the public, mask the
advantage the industry receives from the
public.
(D) Homeowners generally believe that they benefit
from any tax relief offered to the solar-energy
industry.
(E) Tax relief would encourage solar industries to
sell solar-energy systems at higher prices.

答案:A,我是用排除法得到的,请问正面解该如何考虑呢?

15. In Argonia the average rate drivers pay for car acci-
dent insurance is regulated to allow insurance
companies to make a reasonable profit. Under the
regulations, the rate any individual driver pays never
depends on the actual distance driven by that driver
each year. Therefore, Argonians who drive less than
average partially subsidize the insurance of those
who drive more than average.

The conclusion above would be properly drawn if it
were also true that in Argonia
(A) the average accident insurance rate for all driv-
ers rises whenever a substantial number of
new drivers buy insurance
(B) the average cost to insurance companies of
insuring drivers who drive less than the
annual average is less than the average cost
of insuring drivers who drive more than the
annual average
(C) the lower the age of a driver, the higher the
insurance rate paid by that driver
(D) insurance company profits would rise substan-
tially if drivers were classified in terms of the
actual number of miles they drive each year
(E) drivers who have caused insurance companies
to pay costly claims generally pay insurance
rates that are equal to or lower than those
paid by other drivers

答案:B,我选E,E对, 请问B是什么意思?没看懂.

谢谢.

---

作者: mindfree    时间: 2003-4-22 20:23
1. 羊毛出在羊身上. 在美国tax是个很敏感的问题. Government revenue comes largely from corporate and individual taxes. 不明白为什么美国人明知道要自己pay the bill for the war还那么热心打Iraq. Anyway, tax relief means reduction in corporate taxes for solar industry, and it might mean that the government is using the fund originally available to benefit homeowners to subsidize the industry. 所以一方面homeowner获得了减价(pros), 一方面tax relief可能导致他们其它利益的减少(cons). 既然结论是总体上不benefit homeowner, 必然是cons outweigh pros. 既答案A.

A很明显, 说明了三方的利益关系. 其它选项都不全面或无关.

2. 保费和mileage无关, 既然说开车少(below average mileage)的保险费subsidize开车多的, 说明实际成本开车少的要低于开车多的. 举例, 如果说咱俩去吃buffet, 我们付一样多的钱, 结论是我赚的弥补了你亏的,为什么?应该是我吃的比你多.

饿了, 举完此例更饿.

---

作者: joywzy    时间: 2003-4-23 18:57
不好意思，第10题，我还是不明白，能否说得详细一点？

15，B是什么意思啊？
B、E有什么区别吗？

谢谢。

---

作者: mindfree    时间: 2003-4-24 00:43
15T B取非原结论不成立. E对原文无任何影响, 因为没有涉及原文提到的两种人, 也没有将这四种人一一对应.

10T 你再想想. 比如说一个人赚了便宜, 但是其他人说他还是吃亏了. 为什么? 必然是在其它方面的亏outweigh赚到的便宜. 再举例: 说一个人一个小时挣100美金, 表面上是很赚, 但是别人都说他亏了. 为什么? 一定是他所付出的大于100美金. 回到此例, 政府给tax relief, 少收税, 它可能需要从其它方面把少的税补上 (增加其他taxpayer包括homeowner的负担), 或是减少政府支出(少修几条高速公路,减少教育投入, 减少给homeowner的补贴等). 所以表面上homeowner可能少付了钱,但是在其它方面的损失可能要更大. A

---

作者: joywzy    时间: 2003-4-24 06:47
T10，我明白了。谢谢。

T15
the average cost to insurance companies of
insuring drivers who drive less than the
annual average is less than the average cost
of insuring drivers who drive more than the
annual average
能不能翻译一下确切意思？

如果B是more than,就是假设了。

E为什么不对呢？还是不明白B、E的差别是。不好意思。

---

作者: Pudding    时间: 2005-2-17 20:06
我怎麼覺得, 應該是開車少的cost 高於 開車多的cost啊? 要不然怎麼subsidize?

---

作者: Pudding    时间: 2005-2-21 17:07
不解中...誰來救救我...

---

作者: 小女公子    时间: 2005-2-25 13:17

为什么１０题的Ｅ不可以呢？

ｒｅｌｉｅｆ引发了价格上扬，购买者为此遭受了损失。因为缺少an amount at least equal to
the reduction in the price of that home-
owner's solar-energy system installation.
这个假设吗？？

---

作者: 小女公子    时间: 2005-2-26 11:14
up

---

作者: colacat    时间: 2005-2-26 12:20

以下是引用Pudding在2005-2-17 20:06:00的发言：
我怎麼覺得, 應該是開車少的cost 高於 開車多的cost啊? 要不然怎麼subsidize?

关键是cost的理解，所谓insurance company的cost实际上就是保险公司赔给投保人的钱，就是你出了事故了，保险公司赔给你的钱。

所以C说，保险公司赔给开车少的人的金额少于赔给开车多的人的金额。但是大家交的保费是一样的。所以自然是开车少的人补给开车多的人了。

[此贴子已经被作者于2005-2-26 12:21:55编辑过]

---

作者: Pudding    时间: 2005-2-26 17:20

关键是cost的理解，所谓insurance company的cost实际上就是保险公司赔给投保人的钱

真是一語驚醒夢中人!! 謝謝colacat mm, 原來我剛好理解反了...

---

作者: 小女公子    时间: 2005-2-27 20:08

以下是引用小女公子在2005-2-25 13:17:00的发言：

为什么１０题的Ｅ不可以呢？

ｒｅｌｉｅｆ引发了价格上扬，购买者为此遭受了损失。因为缺少an amount at least equal to
the reduction in the price of that home-
owner's solar-energy system installation.
这个假设吗？？

借人家的楼……继续……

汗颜中

---

作者: 小女公子    时间: 2005-3-1 12:25
up

---

作者: snowjing    时间: 2005-8-11 04:49

以下是引用mindfree在2003-4-22 20:23:00的发言：
1. 羊毛出在羊身上. 在美国tax是个很敏感的问题. Government revenue comes largely from corporate and individual taxes. 不明白为什么美国人明知道要自己pay the bill for the war还那么热心打Iraq. Anyway, tax relief means reduction in corporate taxes for solar industry, and it might mean that the government is using the fund originally available to benefit homeowners to subsidize the industry. 所以一方面homeowner获得了减价(pros), 一方面tax relief可能导致他们其它利益的减少(cons). 既然结论是总体上不benefit homeowner, 必然是cons outweigh pros. 既答案A.

A很明显, 说明了三方的利益关系. 其它选项都不全面或无关.

2. 保费和mileage无关, 既然说开车少(below average mileage)的保险费subsidize开车多的, 说明实际成本开车少的要低于开车多的. 举例, 如果说咱俩去吃buffet, 我们付一样多的钱, 结论是我赚的弥补了你亏的,为什么?应该是我吃的比你多.

饿了, 举完此例更饿.

Mindfree解释得很清晰.

对于第10题, 答案A没问题. 但总觉得tax relief would cause the homeowner to lose不符合实际情况. 因为实际生活中有没有tax relief对homeowner而言都不影响缴税的. 反而,因为tax relief的存在, homeowner pay lower price.

请指正.

---

作者: judiwind2006    时间: 2006-8-25 17:17
up

---

作者: fengyun1    时间: 2006-8-29 16:16

苦思冥想的题，被mindfree只言片语给解决了。赞!

---

作者: ll_422    时间: 2006-9-19 13:42

mindfree, 牛!

俺再理解理解.

---

作者: 晴天小狗    时间: 2006-10-19 10:20

大全-10-10.    Any tax relief received by the solar industry would not benefit the homeowner who installs a solar-energy system. Even though homeowners would pay a lower price for solar-energy system installations because of this tax relief, with the government paying the balance, government revenues come from the public.

The argument above is based on which of the following assumptions?

(A) The tax relief would cause the homeowner to lose, through taxes or reduced government benefits or both, an amount at least equal to the reduction in the price of that homeowner’s solar-energy system installation.

(B) The tax relief that would be received by solar-energy industries would not be offered at the same time as any tax relief for other industries.

(C) Advertisements of the solar-energy industry, by failing to identify the source of government revenues explicitly to the public, mask the advantage the industry receives from the public.

(D) Homeowners generally believe that they benefit from any tax relief offered to the solar-energy industry.（A）

(E) Tax relief would encourage solar industries to sell solar-energy systems at higher prices.

with government paying the balance，banlance指的什么？

[此贴子已经被作者于2006-10-19 16:08:34编辑过]

---

作者: 晴天小狗    时间: 2006-10-19 16:09

with government paying the balance，banlance指的什么？
            

---

作者: Bill06    时间: 2006-11-1 15:55

以下是引用晴天小狗在2006-10-19 16:09:00的发言：

with government paying the balance，banlance指的什么？
   

安装费前后变化的差价

---

作者: lxzjojo    时间: 2006-11-21 23:52

汗，终于想明白鸟第15题，是那选项太长吓着了，sign...

[此贴子已经被作者于2006-11-22 0:03:47编辑过]

---

作者: chockolate    时间: 2008-8-10 00:22

以下是引用mindfree在2003-4-22 20:23:00的发言：
1. 羊毛出在羊身上. 在美国tax是个很敏感的问题. Government revenue comes largely from corporate and individual taxes. 不明白为什么美国人明知道要自己pay the bill for the war还那么热心打Iraq. Anyway, tax relief means reduction in corporate taxes for solar industry, and it might mean that the government is using the fund originally available to benefit homeowners to subsidize the industry. 所以一方面homeowner获得了减价(pros), 一方面tax relief可能导致他们其它利益的减少(cons). 既然结论是总体上不benefit homeowner, 必然是cons outweigh pros. 既答案A.

A很明显, 说明了三方的利益关系. 其它选项都不全面或无关.

2. 保费和mileage无关, 既然说开车少(below average mileage)的保险费subsidize开车多的, 说明实际成本开车少的要低于开车多的. 举例, 如果说咱俩去吃buffet, 我们付一样多的钱, 结论是我赚的弥补了你亏的,为什么?应该是我吃的比你多.

饿了, 举完此例更饿.

反了，应该是为什么能得出我赚你亏得结论，是因为我吃得比你多。为什么说开得少的人贴补开车多的人，其是基于条件：开得少的人对于保险公司的成本低于开车多的人

---

作者: XVVjing61    时间: 2008-8-16 07:31

---

作者: XVVjing61    时间: 2008-8-16 07:39
n年之后再看还是这么经典

[此贴子已经被作者于2008-8-16 7:39:48编辑过]

---

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

Powered by Discuz! X3.3