ChaseDream

标题: 【请教】GWD-T-9-Q2 [打印本页]

作者: hduszj 时间: 2009-7-17 11:21
标题: 【请教】GWD-T-9-Q2

T-9-Q2 Kernland imposes a high tariff on the export of unprocessed cashew nuts in order to ensure that the nuts are sold to domestic processing plants. If the tariff were lifted and unprocessed cashew were sold at world market prices, more farmers could profit by growing cashews. However, since all the processing plants are in urban areas, removing the tariff would seriously hamper the government‘s effort to reduce urban unemployment over the next five years.

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

A. Some of the by-products of processing cashews are used for manufacturing plants and plastics

B. Other countries in which cashews are processed subsidize their processing plants

C. More people in kernland are engaged in farming cashews than in processing them

D. Buying unprocessed cashews at lower than world market prices enables cashew processors in kernland to sell processed nuts at competitive prices

E. A lack of profitable crops is driving an increasing number of small farmers in kernland off their land and into the cities

E说farmers因种crops无利可图而进城，但未必就一定失业啊？？？

请各位大虾指教！！！谢谢！！！

[此贴子已经被作者于2009/7/18 17:47:02编辑过]

作者: edogawaconan 时间: 2009-7-19 18:08
同问~

作者: hduszj 时间: 2009-7-25 14:51

没人理。。。

作者: priton 时间: 2009-7-27 13:13

以下为我的想法,请见蓝色字

Kernland imposes a high tariff on the export of unprocessed cashew nuts in order to ensure that the nuts are sold to domestic processing plants. If the tariff were lifted and unprocessed cashew were sold at world market prices, more farmers could profit by growing cashews. However, since all the processing plants are in urban areas, removing the tariff would seriously hamper the government‘s effort to reduce urban unemployment over the next five years.

结论句: revoming tariff -> unemployment in cities "won't be reduced"

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

C.More people in kernland are engaged in farming cashews than in processing them

-> 此选项把范围由cities扩大到整个Kerland，的确若remove tariff，此选项可以说明Kernald的失业率可能会下降，但确无法weaken城市中的失业率不会下降这个结论

E.A lack of profitable crops is driving an increasing number of small farmers in kernland off their land and into the cities
-> A lack of profitable crop代表的就是"没有remove tariff"，没有废除关税导致Kerland那些无利可图的农民移动到城里，现在只要证明"enemployment in cities won't be reduced" 就可以达到反对因的削弱。的确，不一定那些移动到城里的农民都是失业者，但就算全部的这些农民都找到工作，顶多失业人口也只是持平，没有reduced吧?! 更何况若只要其中一个农民没有工作，更证明了失业人口不会减少。削弱原题的因果关系

一点拙见，open to discuss

作者: freely 时间: 2009-7-27 23:43
the same question

作者: lijiahui0422 时间: 2009-7-28 08:25

priton题目解释的很透彻

我说一下对选项的看法

C 要明确政府的目的是什么——想让城市失业率下降，C中可能农民增加失业率会超过相对的城市增加的就业率，但是人家政府不管农民，目的只是城市，只有城市就业率没上升，才是weaken

E 我觉得没必要想的太细致，所谓的suppor和weaken并不是让题目变得无懈可击，只是有着加强和削弱作用，只要农民进城有很大的可能性导致失业率上升就可以了。

个人意见，open to dicuss

作者: pwss 时间: 2009-7-28 15:48
UP

作者: peoplefossil 时间: 2010-6-4 00:00
tariff提高，卖到加工工厂的变少，urban失业增加
E农民涌向城市，他因失业增加
C提高使农民受益，加强

作者: Jennyseer 时间: 2011-3-10 00:10
最重要的问题没有指出！If the tariff were lifted and unprocessed cashew were sold at world market prices, more farmers could ....中的lifted是取消的意思，不是提高！！！注意，关键点在这里！！！

作者: jaze 时间: 2011-3-16 13:53

我对这道题的看法是这样，
削弱结论即
在如掉那个关税之后，不会对政府在将来五年内对减少城市人口失业所做的努力造成严重影响
也就是说，去掉关税还是有点好处的，
E说，本来要去城市的农民工，在去关税之后，回家务农了，这样就减少了本可能增加的城市失业人口

A. Some of the by-products of processingcashews are used for manufacturing plants and plastics

B. Other countries in which cashews areprocessed subsidize their processing plants

C. More people in kernland areengaged in farming cashews than in processing them
没有什么好处啊！

D. Buying unprocessed cashews at lower thanworld market prices enables cashew processors in kernland to sell processednuts at competitive prices

同上

作者: lyria 时间: 2011-4-7 15:56
E不是说农民回家，而是农民会大量进城啊。

我对这道题的看法是这样，
削弱结论即
在如掉那个关税之后，不会对政府在将来五年内对减少城市人口失业所做的努力造成严重影响
也就是说，去掉关税还是有点好处的，
E说，本来要去城市的农民工，在去关税之后，回家务农了，这样就减少了本可能增加的城市失业人口

A. Some of the by-products of processingcashews are used for manufacturing plants and plastics

B. Other countries in which cashews areprocessed subsidize their processing plants

C. More people in kernland areengaged in farming cashews than in processing them
没有什么好处啊！

D. Buying unprocessed cashews at lower thanworld market prices enables cashew processors in kernland to sell processednuts at competitive prices

同上

-- by 会员 jaze (2011/3/16 13:53:51)

作者: shaonianhe 时间: 2011-4-7 21:25
since all the processing plants are in urban areas, removing the tariff would 注意看是《seriously 》hamper the government‘s effort to reduce urban unemployment over the next five years.我的感觉是
如果要削弱说失业人数少甚至和那个税收无关就好，毕竟seriously太好削弱了，只要比他程度低都能叫削弱吧~！愚见~！C给我的感觉就是这种程度的降低

作者: lolitatu 时间: 2011-5-29 11:47
本来我也错了，但是看完很多的人的分析之后，突然觉得E挺明显的就是它因A lack of profitable crops is driving an increasing number of small farmers in kernland off their land and into the cities。 A lack of profitable crops 是 removing the tarrif 之外的另一个原因。所以这道题不用太纠结关税有无对农民收入的关系。

作者: ike982003 时间: 2011-6-20 16:38
这题原文结论说的是会影响政府减少失业，那就是失业率会上升啊，那不就是说选项要说失业率不会上升那才weaken吧

作者: ss27 时间: 2011-6-20 18:39
我同意楼上。弱弱地感觉好像有些分析完全反了……

作者: ashlie888 时间: 2011-7-13 17:01
原文结论：取消关税或者降低关税——>农民获利——>但是失业率上升
E削弱：农民不获利——>失业率上升；本题关键词：unemployment

open to discuss

作者: nemiah 时间: 2011-7-13 17:39
这题真是绕啊。。。

取消关税－》农民获利－》会导致失业率上升。

E：如果农民不获利－》会进入城市导致失业率上升－》反过来说，如果农民获利了－》就不会进入城市－》也就是的不会造成失业率上升。

作者: foxgreat 时间: 2012-5-11 10:57
我个人认为：

C选项，不管是种cashews的人多，还是加工cashews的人多，只要关税被去掉，城市中的失业率一定会像题干里说的那样，上升。

E选项，城市里面的一部分失业人员很有可能是由那些没地种的农民组成的，因此去掉关税后，这些农民还会回去种地，对失业率有下降的作用。诚然，我们不知道去掉关税后，导致的原本有岗位的人员失业会对失业率有多大影响。但是，由于那些失业农民的离开，就导致我们不能下论断说失业率一定会上升。因此，削弱了结论。

一点个人看法，欢迎大家指点。

作者: hanyichen 时间: 2012-6-28 21:34
我就是想不明白为什么农民进城导致失业率降低啊？这不相当于歧视外地人吗？ETS 怎么会有这种潜在的卑鄙想法。

作者: huangkang3039 时间: 2012-7-27 17:44
lift是取消的意思，不是提升，指的是消散。
文章本身逻辑：
1. 有tarrif的时候==〉对农民不利（卖低于国际价），对城市加工厂有利（没有国外竞争）
2. 没有tarriff的时候 ==〉对农民有利（赚更多利润），对城市失业率不利（城市工厂没生意，增加失业率）
想要减弱 – 必须和文章的意思相反
D. 有tariff（因为卖低于国际价格了）==〉对城市工厂有利（因为他们可以更有竞争力了）
与文章意思一致，不是减弱
E．有Tariff（因为农民没钱赚了） ? 对城市失业率也不利（因为农民进城没工作了）
与文章意思相反，是减弱

作者: huangkang3039 时间: 2012-7-27 17:45
Manhattan GMAT上的某大牛对你的回答，可以供参考。

What you are saying, in effect, is that workers who move to the city will be unemployed. Isn't that too much of an assumption as per GMAT standards?

Could you explain it a little more clearly?

Thank You

nope, definitely not too much of an assumption. two solid reasons why not.

first, there has to be some baseline assumption here -- i.e., we must make a judgment as to which of the following alternatives is more reasonable:
1 * it's more likely that the displaced farmers moving into the city DO NOT have prearranged jobs
VS
2 * it's more likely that the displaced farmers moving into the city DO have prearranged jobs
i think you'll agree that the first of these assumptions is much more reasonable than the second.

also, note what we're trying to do in this problem: we are trying to WEAKEN the argument.
if any non-negligible fraction of the farmers lack jobs in the city, then the government plan will help to reduce city unemployment, by keeping these farmers on their land (and thus out of the city). therefore, if there is a positive effect on reducing unemployment, that's exactly the opposite of what the argument claims -- so the argument is weakened.
in fact, the only way this choice doesn't weaken the argument is if you assume that ALL of the farmers have jobs waiting for them in the city. that would be the unreasonable assumption here.

作者: 清影claire 时间: 2012-9-9 10:20
提高税率会让process受损，那么去除关税会让process获利。城里专做process，于是按常理推断，去除关税会使城市的失业率下降。
但原文却给出了一个与常理矛盾的结论：However, 去除关税 不利于 城市失业率的下降。
问哪一个选项支持去除关税利于城市失业率的下降？
C：跟城市就业情况无关，干掉
E：与城市就业情况有关，留着
关键词：unban unemployment!

考试时间有限，自己想明白逻辑链，根本没时间，想到这一层已经可以做题了

作者: 老褚2 时间: 2012-10-14 22:44
狂顶！！

作者: AlexYYY 时间: 2013-3-8 13:25

最重要的问题没有指出！If the tariff were lifted and unprocessed cashew were sold at world market prices, more farmers could ....中的lifted是取消的意思，不是提高！！！注意，关键点在这里！！！

-- by 会员 Jennyseer (2011/3/10 0:10:48)

这句话戳到痛点了。。。。。。。lifted啊！！！！！！

作者: fionalovesunny 时间: 2013-5-28 08:23
这道题还是不明白啊。。。
e选项说的是：农民都跑城里来了。这个不是说提高失业率吗？？？？？？？
题目要求选择降低失业率的啊。。。。。。。。。。。。

作者: 几米的世界9 时间: 2013-7-4 18:27

Jennyseer 发表于 2011-3-10 00:10
最重要的问题没有指出！If the tariff were lifted and unprocessed cashew were sold at world market pri ...

赞同！！！

作者: crazysuo 时间: 2013-7-19 23:57
摘自manhattan
This is a very difficult question, but you might arrive at E in two ways:

1) by process of ellimination
2) by noticing the change in the argument at the word "however" and noting this in your diagram somehow

A reduced diagram:

K: (up) tariff cashew exports ---> sold to domestic plants
If no tariff ----> more farmers get $
BUT plants in cities, so no tariff ----> hurt gov effort to (down) unemployment
(AKA we need the plants to stay open)

Notice that we must weaken the conclusion, which is the cause and effect relationship in bold above. At this point, notice that the conclusion is immediately following the word "BUT." So, strengthen the preceding idea, and as a result you can weaken the C.

E is right because it shows us that without good crops to grow for profit, poor farmers will move to the city. Well, the tariff, if removed, would allow those poor farmers to make money growing cashews. As a result, they wouldn't need to move to the city to find work. Hence, the unemployment rates in the city would not go up because of these new workers. Everything in this argument is tied together. It is essential that you see important words like "however" and the relationships that these words create among various parts of the argument.

A tough one, but a good one.

作者: potentialwjy117 时间: 2014-7-24 10:20
还是不理解...

结论是移除关税,会阻碍政府降低失业率的努力--->既失业率上升

问以下哪些削弱--->意味要找失业率下降的选项

E: 种田不赚钱导致更多农民进城---->也就是说失业率上升

是我笨死了吗

作者: ladiklong 时间: 2014-7-24 14:57

potentialwjy117 发表于 2014-7-24 10:20
还是不理解...

结论是移除关税,会阻碍政府降低失业率的努力--->既失业率上升

额，这题是很绕，你仔细看下前面牛人的回复
是这样的，E选项是反过来说。
原文逻辑就像你说的“移除关税,会阻碍政府降低失业率的努力--->既失业率上升”，
E选项是“不移除关税（这句是潜台词，由种田不赚钱推导的），农民会进城--->既失业率上升” 潜在意思就是 “ 不管关税移除或不移除 --->失业率都会上升“。所以削弱了原文的结论。
不知道我说的是不是也很绕

作者: potentialwjy117 时间: 2014-7-26 01:00

ladiklong 发表于 2014-7-24 01:57
额，这题是很绕，你仔细看下前面牛人的回复
是这样的，E选项是反过来说。
原文逻辑就像你说的“移除关税, ...

还是你解释得清晰啊!!十分感谢!!

作者: angela37888 时间: 2014-8-25 18:34

huangkang3039 发表于 2012-7-27 17:44
lift是取消的意思，不是提升，指的是消散。  文章本身逻辑：1. 有tarrif的时候==〉对农民不利（卖低 ...

好有道理，瞬间明白了

作者: skylar3 时间: 2014-9-3 00:08

ladiklong 发表于 2014-7-24 14:57
额，这题是很绕，你仔细看下前面牛人的回复
是这样的，E选项是反过来说。
原文逻辑就像你说的“移除关税, ...

必须赞一个，你太棒了~超级明白~谢谢

作者: adonisia 时间: 2014-9-29 15:30
做到这道题了，确实很绕，说下我的想法，第一页有些人分析错了，并不是他因削弱，那个是针对原因推理的，这道题需要削弱的推理是结果。

逻辑链是：事实：取消关税会让更多农民受益；推理（结果）：取消关税会阻碍未来5年城市失业率降低，即城市失业率会增加。
这道题问削弱，就要找能直接推翻结论的选项，即要找“未来5年失业率不会增加”的选项，而选项中用的都是一般现在时、现在进行式，说的都是目前没取消关税的情况。

C选项：现在种植cashews的人比加工的人多——那取消关税之后，收益的人更多——跟城市失业率无关
E选项：现在越来越多的农民进入城市——目前城市的失业率高的原因就是这个——取消关税之后，农民回去种地了，中和了城市加工工人失业的负面效果，未来5年城市失业率可能不会增加——起到削弱作用

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