ChaseDream
标题: OG-122 [打印本页]
作者: cz 时间: 2003-12-22 07:10
标题: OG-122
#122) When people evade income taxes by not declaring taxable income, a vicious cycle results. Tax evasion forces lawmakers to raise income tax rates, which causes the tax burden on nonevading taxpayers to become heavier. This, in turn, encourages even more taxpayers to evade income taxes by hiding taxable income.
The vicious cycle described above could not result unless which of the following were true?
C) When lawmakers establish income tax rates in order to generate a certain level of revenue, they do not allow adequately for revenue that will be lost through evasion.
能帮我理解下这个题吗？
作者: weane 时间: 2003-12-23 17:38
如果lawmaker在制定税率以获得一定水平的收入时没有充分考虑到逃税造成的收入减少，才会任凭这个循环进行。换句话说，如果lawmaker制定税率时充分考虑到逃税会造成收入减少，则逃税不会导致调高税率（因为这个因素在制定税率时考虑进去了），则循环就不能进行。
遇到这种题型时可以从反面来想。比如题目要求非A来加强B，你说A会削弱B就可以了。这应该就是xdf著名的取非削弱理论。不知nn们怎么看。
作者: crusaders 时间: 2003-12-24 04:56
题干Vicious cycle:
ppl evade taxable income------>(????)-------->lawmaker raise income tax rates------->tax burden on nonevading taxpayers to become heavier----->encourages even more taxpayers to evade income taxes ------->law....
问题The vicious cycle described above could not result unless which of the following were true?
逆否一下If the statement of the following were ture, then the vicious cycle described above will result. (既找假设)
就像Midfree大大说的那样 假设是连接reasioning line的一部分
而缺口就在reasioning line开始部分
为什么人们逃税就会-----导致------>lawmaker提高rates?
因为假设(即C中)lawmaker对revenue的确定是有一定要求的
C.When lawmakers establish income tax rates in order to generate a certain level of revenue, they do not allow adequately for revenue that will be lost through evasion.
lawmakers -----> certain level of revenue------>not allow evasion
所以
当ppl evade taxable income(也就是Vicious第一个条件开始成立的时候)
lawmakers才会
raise income tax rates------->tax burden on nonevading taxpayers to become heavier----->encourages even more taxpayers to evade income taxes ------->law....
这个恶性循环才会形成
希望大家指出错误 继续讨论....
[此贴子已经被作者于2003-12-24 4:59:43编辑过]
作者: weane 时间: 2003-12-24 13:29
兄弟，你的逆否命题的推论有问题。The vicious cycle described above could not result unless which of the following were true并不等价于If the statement of the following were ture, then the vicious cycle described above will result.逆否命题并非单纯的顺序交换，而是因果关系的交换，你的这个推论，因果关系并没有变。你的转换就是A-B=非A-非B，这不是你否命题。
作者: crusaders 时间: 2003-12-24 15:32
谢谢
积极思考ing....
作者: crusaders 时间: 2003-12-24 15:43
The vicious cycle described above could not result unless which of the following were true.
===>
The vicious cycle described above could not result if which of the following were not true.
===>
IF The vicious cycle described could reasult, Which of the following were true.
这回对了:]
作者: tom_2008 时间: 2005-6-29 19:25
有道理
作者: jaredyu 时间: 2005-12-3 18:31
看了很久总算是明白了。
选项取非：lawmakers DO allow for revenue lost =>题目结论不成立：vicious cycle not results。
即选项是题目结论的必要条件。也就是
文章结论成立：vicious cycle results =>选项lawmakers do not allow for revenue lost。
这样正符合了 not A unless B = not A if not B = A推出B
作者: seasnow 时间: 2005-12-15 09:13
不太明白C中的adequately，放在这里是什么意思呢？请大牛指教，谢谢！
作者: seasnow 时间: 2005-12-23 07:05
自己顶一下，没人回答，5555555555
作者: goodwish 时间: 2006-1-11 11:12
Adequately: Sufficiently 充分地
作者: cici1979923 时间: 2006-3-22 05:08
想了半天，终于有点明白，但不知道有没有道理
恶性循环：tax evasion--lawmaker raise income tax rate--more tax evasion--.......
所以要恶性循环产生，必须循环当中的每个要素都产生作用，即首先要有tax evasion产生，然后lawmaker raise income tax rate,要是lawmaker可以容忍一些evasion就不会提高rate，也就不会有所谓的死循环，而其他选项当中提到的要素根本与恶性循环的要素无关
作者: roric 时间: 2006-7-22 22:56
以下是引用cici1979923在2006-3-22 5:08:00的发言：
想了半天，终于有点明白，但不知道有没有道理
恶性循环：tax evasion--lawmaker raise income tax rate--more tax evasion--.......
所以要恶性循环产生，必须循环当中的每个要素都产生作用，即首先要有tax evasion产生，然后lawmaker raise income tax rate,要是lawmaker可以容忍一些evasion就不会提高rate，也就不会有所谓的死循环，而其他选项当中提到的要素根本与恶性循环的要素无关
我也是想了很久才反映过来哦晕，关键就在于lawmaker是不可以容忍revenue下是的,tax rate必须保证revenue 的
反应慢就是因为这一点没有在提干中出现，而在选项中出现，作为cycle的一个理解上所需要的踏板
作者: amy7777 时间: 2006-10-10 08:37
以下是引用jaredyu在2005-12-3 18:31:00的发言：看了很久总算是明白了。
选项取非：lawmakers DO allow for revenue lost =>题目结论不成立：vicious cycle not results。
即选项是题目结论的必要条件。也就是
文章结论成立：vicious cycle results =>选项lawmakers do not allow for revenue lost。
这样正符合了 not A unless B = not A if not B = A推出B
以下是引用crusaders在2003-12-24 15:43:00的发言：
The vicious cycle described above could not result unless which of the following were true.
===>
The vicious cycle described above could not result if which of the following were not true.
===>
IF The vicious cycle described could reasult, Which of the following were true.
这回对了:]
这一题我们要从选项中选一个作为假设对吗？？
not A,unless B=not A,if not B =if A,then B 如果这个成立的话，这题的问句
原文中是The vicious cycle described above could not result unless which of the following were true?
我改成题目这样问，If the vicious cycle described could result, Which of the following were true？
是不是和原文中的问题是一样的，也就是遇到这个的问题，从选项里面也是找一个假设？
我自已觉得挺有道理的，但是不太确信，请指点。
谢谢。
If the vicious cycle described could result, Which of the following were true？
是不是和原文中的问题是一样的，也就是遇到这个的问题，从选项里面也是找一个假设？
我自已觉得挺有道理的，但是不太确信，请指点。
谢谢。
The vicious cycle described above could not result unless which of the following were true?
我改成题目这样问，If the vicious cycle described could result, Which of the following were true？
是不是和原文中的问题是一样的，也就是遇到这个的问题，从选项里面也是找一个假设？
我自已觉得挺有道理的，但是不太确信，请指点。
谢谢。
If the vicious cycle described could result, Which of the following were true？
是不是和原文中的问题是一样的，也就是遇到这个的问题，从选项里面也是找一个假设？
我自已觉得挺有道理的，但是不太确信，请指点。
谢谢。
[此贴子已经被作者于2006-10-10 8:58:47编辑过]
作者: raikey 时间: 2007-4-26 01:31
我觉得该题都是"allow for"引出的问题.
"they do not allow adequately for revenue that will be lost through evasion"是说"他们没有充分考虑到逃税所造成的损失".显然只有这样,才会有"一味升税率"这种解决办法.
一开始还以为"他们不允许存在任何逃税造成的损失"......
作者: Prison_Break 时间: 2007-4-26 14:06
以下是引用weane在2003-12-23 17:38:00的发言：
如果lawmaker在制定税率以获得一定水平的收入时没有充分考虑到逃税造成的收入减少，才会任凭这个循环进行。换句话说，如果lawmaker制定税率时充分考虑到逃税会造成收入减少，则逃税不会导致调高税率（因为这个因素在制定税率时考虑进去了），则循环就不能进行。
遇到这种题型时可以从反面来想。比如题目要求非A来加强B，你说A会削弱B就可以了。这应该就是xdf著名的取非削弱理论。不知nn们怎么看。
Support
Support XDF
作者: Prison_Break 时间: 2007-4-26 14:07
不管黑猫白猫抓到老鼠的就是好猫，OG的解释是最标准的，但是不见得是最快又最好的。
作者: yoyobaobao 时间: 2007-5-11 09:17
以下是引用raikey在2007-4-26 1:31:00的发言：我觉得该题都是"allow for"引出的问题.
"they do not allow adequately for revenue that will be lost through evasion"是说"他们没有充分考虑到逃税所造成的损失".显然只有这样,才会有"一味升税率"这种解决办法.
一开始还以为"他们不允许存在任何逃税造成的损失"......
我也是啊，都是吃了词汇的亏啊！
allow for somebody/something
phrasal verb
to consider the possible facts, problems, costs etc involved in something when making a plan, calculation, or judgment:
Allowing for inflation, the cost of the project will be $2 million.
You should always allow for the possibility that it might rain.
作者: rongyang114 时间: 2010-10-7 11:48
good , not A unless B, 即 A推出B
作者: akiluk 时间: 2010-10-9 17:06
以下是引用raikey在2007-4-26 1:31:00的发言：
我觉得该题都是"allow for"引出的问题.
"they do not allow adequately for revenue that will be lost through evasion"是说"他们没有充分考虑到逃税所造成的损失".显然只有这样,才会有"一味升税率"这种解决办法.
一开始还以为"他们不允许存在任何逃税造成的损失"......
我也是啊，都是吃了词汇的亏啊！
allow for somebody/something
phrasal verb
to consider the possible facts, problems, costs etc involved in something when making a plan, calculation, or judgment:
Allowing for inflation, the cost of the project will be $2 million.
You should always allow for the possibility that it might rain.
-- by 会员 yoyobaobao (2007/5/11 9:17:00)
作者: maximeason 时间: 2010-10-9 17:39
这题关键在于allow for吧。。反正我一眼没看明白
如果立法者已经考虑到，有一部分税是被逃了，他们加tax rate的时候会酌情考虑的
不会随意乱加
作者: sarahstany 时间: 2010-12-29 11:58
敢于问责lawmaker，政策没有制定好！
作者: sun2046 时间: 2011-1-18 15:49
allow for -----考虑到。。。
哎，考试时必晕死阿
作者: sun2046 时间: 2011-1-18 16:05
Because lawmakers do not allow adequete loss through tax evasion, the actual tax revenue they can get never meets the expected number. That's why lawmakers will be forced to raise tax rate in the next year.
If adequete loss through evasion is considered and allowed to some extent, then there will be no need to raise tax rate and thus the vicious cycle is broke.
作者: whatdoihave 时间: 2011-3-11 23:51
allow for 悲了个剧
作者: tony249 时间: 2011-8-27 12:02
一开始读错题了，还以为说以下哪些true时，能break这个cycle。看来理解题意很重要啊。这里其实是问以下哪些true时，这个cycle会发生，这样看来，肯定就是c了，因为lawmaker没有充分考虑到逃税造成的财政损失，导致继续increase tax rate...跟cycle接上了。
A will not happen unless B happens
=>
A will happen if B happens
eg.
I will not love you unless you have money
=>
I will love you if you have money
作者: sunnysunxiamen 时间: 2011-9-16 16:43
标题: 赞！
一开始读错题了，还以为说以下哪些true时，能break这个cycle。看来理解题意很重要啊。这里其实是问以下哪些true时，这个cycle会发生，这样看来，肯定就是c了，因为lawmaker没有充分考虑到逃税造成的财政损失，导致继续increase tax rate...跟cycle接上了。
A will not happen unless B happens
=>
A will happen if B happens
eg.
I will not love you unless you have money
=>
I will love you if you have money
-- by 会员 tony249 (2011/8/27 12:02:21)
作者: Amber1991 时间: 2011-9-16 17:30
我觉得2楼的讲的很对 把掉的逻辑链补上去
作者: InfiniteAlex 时间: 2014-10-9 21:34
thanks a lot
作者: hanniesu 时间: 2015-7-3 17:27
D哪里错了。。。
作者: tyleng 时间: 2016-5-19 02:43
回30楼
D No one who routinely hides some taxable income can be induced by a lowering of tax rates to stop hiding such income unless fines for evaders are raised at the same time. 这句话本身没错，但是不能回答问题，所以在这题里面不是正确答案。
again，回顾问题，问题是“The vicious cycle described above could not result unless which of the following were true?” 直译：以上这个恶性循环可以不发生，除非下面哪个事情是真的。我个人理解这句话的时候，就把这句话翻成：下面哪句话导致了这个事情的发生？（我这个翻法不确切但是有助于我个人理解）
而D选项说的是，降税并不能让那些习惯了逃税的人缴税，除非降税同时提高了对逃税者对惩罚。这样一看，其实D这个选项说的是“如何打破这个恶性循环”。而题目根本问的不是如何打破这个恶性循环。文不对题，不能回答问题，所以D选项错误。
＊注意题目究竟问的是什么
作者: cuikaka 时间: 2017-7-4 13:07
很经典的解释，D也是恶性循环经典trap，在跳脱条件与结论的关系，为无关选项
| 欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/) |
Powered by Discuz! X3.3 |