ChaseDream

标题: GWD 逻辑题求教 [打印本页]

作者: weiqite 时间: 2009-6-15 23:57
标题: GWD 逻辑题求教

Q10:TTGWD11-Q30:

Editorial:
In Ledland, unemployed adults receive government assistance. To reduce unemployment, the government proposes to supplement the income of those who accept jobs that pay less than government assistance, thus enabling employers to hire workers cheaply. However, the supplement will not raise any worker’s income above what government assistance would provide if he or she were not gainfully employed. Therefore, unemployed people will have no financial incentive to accept jobs that would entitle them to the supplement.

Which of the following, if true about Ledland, most seriously weakens the argument of the editorial?

The government collects no taxes on assistance it provides to unemployed individuals and their families.
Neighboring countries with laws that mandate the minimum wage an employer must pay an employee have higher unemployment rates than Ledland currently has.
People who are employed and look for a new job tend to get higher-paying jobs than job seekers who are unemployed.
The yearly amount unemployed people receive from government assistance is less than the yearly income that the government defines as the poverty level.
People sometimes accept jobs that pay relatively little simply because they enjoy the work.

whyC? Mine:A

作者: alex1dream 时间: 2009-6-16 09:44
文章的重点是 government supply income + cheap payment <= government assistance.
所以，对government assistance收不收税，不能知道，是否改变等式两边的关系。
文中的结论是没有financial incentives. 所以A无关。
C, 被employ的人(不管工资高低)，都比没有被employed德人，有更多的机会找到更高新水的工作。所以，接受政府补贴去一个cheap pay的工作，是有finacial 方面的好处的。削弱题目结论。

作者: zhaozihan 时间: 2009-7-18 21:54
ding

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