ChaseDream

标题: 这类题怎么解？请高手详细指点 [打印本页]

作者: kun861010 时间: 2009-11-28 17:01
标题: 这类题怎么解？请高手详细指点
在做题的过程中碰到这样的一类题，weakern the argument / support the argument。遇到这种题，他倒是想说，支持这个争论的存在呢？还是文中出现的那个人的观点的支持？例如以下这道题：

GWD6-Q20:

Five years ago, as part of a plan to encourage citizens of Levaska to increase the amount of money they put into savings, Levaska’s government introduced special savings accounts in which up to $3,000 a year can be saved with no tax due on the interest unless money is withdrawn before the account holder reaches the age of sixty-five. Millions of dollars have accumulated in the special accounts, so the government’s plan is obviously working.

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

A. A substantial number of Levaskans have withdrawn at least some of the money they had invested in the special accounts.

B. Workers in Levaska who already save money in long-term tax-free accounts that are offered through their workplace cannot take advantage of the special savings accounts introduced by the government.

C. The rate at which interest earned on money deposited in regular savings accounts is taxed depends on the income bracket of the account holder.

D. Many Levaskans who already had long-term savings have steadily been transferring those savings into the special accounts.

E. Many of the economists who now claim that the government’s plan has been successful criticized it when it was introduced.

Answer: D

有没有人可以帮我解释下，是否可以详细点，谢谢。

作者: lpdeng 时间: 2009-11-29 05:54
Five years ago, as part of a plan to encourage citizens of Levaska to increase the amount of money they put into savings （plan的目的）, Levaska’s government introduced special savings accounts in which up to $3,000 a year can be saved with no tax due on the interest unless money is withdrawn before the account holder reaches the age of sixty-five （达到目的措施）. Millions of dollars have accumulated in the special accounts （实施措施后的结果）, so the government’s plan is obviously working （结论：所以Plan的目的达到了）.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument? 这个argument就是根据实施措施后的结果跟plan的目的是一致，得到结论：达到这个plan的措施是有效的。但如果仔细看：

plan是“ increase the amount of money they put into savings ”

措施后的结果是：“Millions of dollars have accumulated in the special accounts ”

两个之间是有差异的，saving increases in special account 并不一定 = saving increases in general!

选项d就指出了这个差异。 d说：很多 Levaskans 只是把其它地方的saving转移到了special account --〉所以special account的saving增加并不能说明总的saving增加了。也就是说，special account的saving增加不能说明政府的plan 有效。

作者: kun861010 时间: 2009-11-29 17:04
对啊，太崇拜你了，我以后看题应该仔细仔细再仔细，谢谢啊，非常感谢的。

作者: 胖川 时间: 2010-7-20 10:59
B错在哪里呢谢谢

作者: wangsiwei 时间: 2010-7-20 11:32
B 中的能不能take advantage不在文章的逻辑主线里，可以说是无关选项。

作者: shaleejia 时间: 2011-5-17 19:55
o !!原来是同意结果不同手段题！！！
太厉害了

作者: jamiewww 时间: 2015-4-11 07:08

lpdeng 发表于 2009-11-29 05:54
Five years ago, as part of a plan to encourage citizens of Levaska to increase the amount of money t ...

神!!!!!!!!!!!!!

作者: 二爷NARU 时间: 2015-6-26 14:53
我做题的时候根本没有想到那儿去。。。真的是太刁了。。好厉害。。。一看就看懂了大神的解释。。。啊。。我是不是脑子有问题。。。呵呵。。。

作者: amandahui918 时间: 2015-10-25 14:21
我做题的时候选的是B，现在感谢大牛的解释，的确是D比B好。说下我的理解，
B. Workers in Levaska who already save money in long-term tax-free accounts that are offered through their workplace cannot take advantage of the special savings accounts introduced by the government.（简单翻译：那些已经通过公司开了免税长期存款账户的工人，不能再使用政府提供的账户去存款。）这里没有指出已经有公司账户的工人是很多，还是只有一小部分，如果只是一小部分，那对政府的PLAN，无法起到消弱的作用。而D选项讲了，是MANY，就是多数人把已有的存款，直接转到了新的账户，这个很明确，是大多数人。所以D比B好。
个人觉得B的迷惑性很强~~~~~

作者: xyxyxy_123 时间: 2016-8-26 21:34
膜拜大牛~~

作者: fesche 时间: 2016-10-7 16:31
B 选项没有说出Conclusion的Millions of dollars have accumulated in the special accounts

作者: Martinaaa 时间: 2021-8-9 18:19

lpdeng 发表于 2009-11-29 05:54
Five years ago, as part of a plan to encourage citizens of Levaska to increase the amount of money t ...

同意！

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