ChaseDream

标题: GWD-12-Q11 [打印本页]

作者: bryan_tang 时间: 2009-7-13 14:18
标题: GWD-12-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?

A.
The current student-teacher ratio at
Vargonia’s government-funded schools is higher than it was during the most
recent period of economic recession.[TZJ2]

B.
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.[TZJ3]

C.
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.[TZJ4]

D.
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.[TZJ5]

E.
During the last economic recession in
Vargonia, the government permanently closed a number of the schools that it had
funded.[TZJ6]

我考虑的题目逻辑：

萧条时期工作难找，由于企业一般于此时裁员；V地的学校由于立法规定免费公立教育和现行的教师学生比例，故未来的萧条不会减少公立学校中教职的数量。

求加强项

我做题是考虑的逻辑如下：

[TZJ2]现行的公立学校师生比例高于上次萧条以来的水平，与题干逻辑无关

[TZJ3]在V地近期经济发展时期，25%的学生参加了私立学校，交了大额学费。私立学校和经济发展时期与题干无关

[TZJ4]现在公立学校的老师数量比上次萧条时上升了20%

[TZJ5]V地公立学校的老师相对于私立学校的老师，收入比较丰厚，很多人兼职。与题干信息无关

[TZJ6]在上次V地的萧条中，政府关闭了一些曾经资助过的学校。

--------------------------

答案选择B项

不知道选择理由如何理解？

[此贴子已经被作者于2009-7-13 14:42:09编辑过]

作者: xfi883 时间: 2009-7-13 14:57

本题的关键在于师生比。

原文说，经济不好的时候，很多地方都减少运营（意味着，现在25%在私立学校的学生将因私立学校的减少或停止运营而转学到免费的公立学校），这样，公立学校的师生比将增加，因此，不可能导致公立学校的教师被裁员。而且，很可能会因为师生比太高而增加招聘。

下次发贴，请调大字号，谢谢。

[此贴子已经被作者于2009-7-13 14:57:54编辑过]

作者: bryan_tang 时间: 2009-7-13 15:54
您的意见我也想到过，不过觉得B项中暗含的条件太多，比如私立学校的学生会因为经济萧条而转到公立学校就读（如果已就读学生不允许转学呢？），比如经济萧条时免费的公立教育会受到更多的欢迎等等，都是题干中没有提到的内容。所以没有选。

看来似乎没有更好的解释了。

我个人总结的逻辑题目加强/减弱项，都是直接加强/减弱前提。像这种中间绕几个弯的确实见的比较少。

还是谢谢斑竹。

[此贴子已经被作者于2009-7-13 15:55:11编辑过]

作者: bryan_tang 时间: 2009-7-13 15:56
看来字号的问题是Chorme浏览器的问题，改来改去没用

版主多多包涵了

作者: jian880821 时间: 2009-7-13 16:41

呵呵，我表达一下自己的浅见。

假设在现实生活中，很多私立学校都超级贵，金融危机来了，这25%的小朋友都上不起私立学校，他们的家长只能把他们放进公立学校，然后导致的结果就是原来的公立学校老师不够用，就要新招聘呗！所以选B啦！

欢迎指教！

作者: 伊布拉莫维琨 时间: 2009-7-17 14:27

作者: zhaozihan 时间: 2009-7-18 21:18

ding

作者: zhengjingzhe 时间: 2009-7-20 17:31
up

作者: imjiaying 时间: 2009-7-28 15:12
这个题目是不是和这个月JJ中一道差不多?

作者: imjiaying 时间: 2009-7-28 15:14
看了解释真是豁然开朗，谢谢大牛~~~我怎么就想不到呢

作者: VivienZheng 时间: 2009-8-1 17:14

作者: gundam00 时间: 2009-8-5 06:52

作者: amumu 时间: 2009-8-30 21:05
关于B我一开始也是这样认为的，因为金融危机所以私立学校的学生转过来了，但是我觉得这个里面假设太多，因为上私立的都是有钱人，经济危机影响不大啊等等。。。

所以我选了C，毕竟表示现在公立学校确实老师多。

作者: kokulyou 时间: 2010-1-21 11:19
这道题我开始也选的C，用排除无关选项的方法直接就把B排除了，因为B选项缺少关键元素”the availability of jobs“,后来在整理的时候才回过头来

这类Support的方式很Tricky啊，不仔细分析根本得不出来正确项，而考试时间又那么紧，，，NN们有没有好的方法啊

作者: 草稿纸 时间: 2010-4-23 11:40
哎，这个B也太13了。
上耀华这样的都是外国人外地人，就算是上不起了，没户口怎么上公立学校呢？

作者: 草稿纸 时间: 2010-4-23 11:44
再说了，私立一般都是小班，公立大班，就算是私立学校学生转到公立学校，相对下岗的一部分私立学校老师还是找不到工作啊？

作者: lovepiao 时间: 2010-5-10 16:09
估计是两害相权取其轻了~谢谢NN们~~~

作者: liulianf 时间: 2010-5-12 14:35

哎，这个B也太13了。
上耀华这样的都是外国人外地人，就算是上不起了，没户口怎么上公立学校呢？

-- by 会员草稿纸 (2010/4/23 11:40:58)

草稿纸同学太意识流了~~

作者: peoplefossil 时间: 2010-6-10 16:47
c选项，两次衰退相比不具说服力，可能第一次非常低。

作者: mars0624 时间: 2010-8-3 07:25
not easy a.

B

作者: Hattielin87 时间: 2010-8-30 20:02
current student-teacher ratios not be exceeded 我还以为这是是背景信息呢，马上就把和背景信息不符合的选项给cut掉了~~所以这道题徘徊了很久，还是选了一个错的~~

作者: Raymond_GMAT 时间: 2011-3-7 19:38
这个题关键在于student-teacher ratios not be exceeded，
意味着虽然经济差了，只要学生人数不减少，老师就不会被裁，所以提供学生不减少的条件为support。
实在是太绕了。

作者: sdcar2010 时间: 2011-3-7 19:49
The key here is the last part of the legal requirement: current student-teacher ratios not be exceeded. This means that as long as the total enrollment of student is not decreasing, there won't be any layoffs among government-funded schools.

B) would strengthen the argument that "any future recessions in Vargonia will probably not reduce the availability of teaching jobs at government-funded schools" due to the legal requirement, since during recession, those who attend expensive private-funded schools might feel the econimical pressure and switch to public-funded school, hence, provide stead streams of new enrollment for the public-funded school. To keep the current student-teacher ratios would not lead to layoffs among the teachers.

作者: 坤kun 时间: 2011-6-2 16:41

The key here is the last part of the legal requirement: current student-teacher ratios not be exceeded. This means that as long as the total enrollment of student is not decreasing, there won't be any layoffs among government-funded schools.

B) would strengthen the argument that "any future recessions in Vargonia will probably not reduce the availability of teaching jobs at government-funded schools" due to the legal requirement, since during recession, those who attend expensive private-funded schools might feel the econimical pressure and switch to public-funded school, hence, provide stead streams of new enrollment for the public-funded school. To keep the current student-teacher ratios would not lead to layoffs among the teachers.

-- by 会员 sdcar2010 (2011/3/7 19:49:46)

能不能请sdcar再解释下为什么A不对呢？我的理解是学生老师比高说明学生多老师少，那不刚好需要招聘更多的老师吗？而且题干的not be exceeded怎么理解吖？学生老师比不能被超过吗？

作者: sdcar2010 时间: 2011-6-3 00:21
The reason A) is out is that the information it provides has no bearing on the argument.

A) The current student-teacher ratio at Vargonia’s government-funded schools is higher than it was during the most recent period of economic recession.

What if the ratio during the last economic recession is extremely low? So A) alone won't help the argument.

作者: 坤kun 时间: 2011-6-3 08:25

The reason A) is out is that the information it provides has no bearing on the argument.

A) The current student-teacher ratio at Vargonia’s government-funded schools is higher than it was during the most recent period of economic recession.

What if the ratio during the last economic recession is extremely low? So A) alone won't help the argument.

-- by 会员 sdcar2010 (2011/6/3 0:21:38)

哦，明白~~~谢谢啦！

作者: Hamburger530 时间: 2012-4-26 14:28
其实这道题很简单。在国外（中国也一样）学校都是设定一个student-teacher ratio的最大值，保证不超过这个值。而student-teacher ratio越小越好（100:1=100 VS 100:20=5），所以只要表示学生可能增多（老师必须随即增多）的选项就对了。
B选项中虽然有很多不确定因素，但总归会有学生转到公立学校的吧。就是只有1个学生转过来，也要增加0.0000几的老师去配合，以保持这个ratio。

作者: alisakwong 时间: 2014-9-7 15:26
实在是不能理解A为什么是无关，A说，现在的比例比一般的萧条时期的比率都要更高。也就意味着在萧条的时候（1）学生更少，或者（2）老师更多，所以可以是support的啊？

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