Twelve years ago and again five years ago, there were extended periods when the
Which of the following, if true, provides the government with the strongest grounds to doubt that the politicians' recommendation, if followed, will achieve its aim?
(A) Several of the politicians now recommending that the pundra be allowed to become weak made that same recommendation before each of the last two periods of currency weakness.
(B) After several decades of operating well below peak capacity, Darfir's manufacturing sector is now operating at near-peak levels.
(C) The economy of a country experiencing a rise in exports will become healthier only if the country's currency is strong or the rise in exports is significant.
(D) Those countries whose manufactured products compete with Darfir's on the world market all currently have stable currencies.
(E) A sharp improvement in the efficiency of Darfir's manufacturing plants would make Darfir's products a bargain on world markets even without any weakening of the pundra relative to other currencies.
说：以前货币贬值——>出口增加，所以现在为了出口增加，我们需要把货币贬值
这不是典型的将逆命题等同于原命题的错误嘛，出口增加不一定一定来自于货币贬值啊
为什么E不对B对呢？B是直接驳斥结论，说出口增加不了，这不是强词夺理嘛。
我现在好像明白了，这个问题问得是，下面那个，如果真，那么politician的计划不会成功。P的计划是为了增加出口，让货币贬值，其理由是以前货币贬值的时候出口增加国。文中已经假设了这个理由是正确的
所以P说要货币贬值就必然能够导致出口增加，计划实现，唯一能够让计划不实现的就是产量已经最大了，(再怎么贬值)出口再也无法增加了
如果题目问得是What ... pinpoint a logic flaw in P's arguement，那么E选项就应该是正确答案了
不知道这样的理解对不对，恳请nn指教啊
我选了C。但看起来后面那个only if the country's currency is strong or the rise in exports is significant里的or是个很大的问题，要是换成and的话我还是会选C。
对于E)，我觉得他并不能成为政府用来质疑那位政治家的理由。原因很简单，要达到出口增加的途径并不一定只有一种，有可能提高生产率和减弱货币都是可以的，你不能因为其中一个可以就证明另一个不可以啊。
如果jasdesky假设的如果问的问题是pinpoint the flaw in the logic的话，那么唯一的途径就是去寻找证据证明减弱货币带来的好处（出口增加）要小于其带来的害处（比如让经济体系不健康）。在这种情况下，E)仍然不是正确答案。
| 欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/) | Powered by Discuz! X3.3 |