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?
A. The government collects no taxes on assistance it provides to unemployed individuals and their families.
B. Neighboring countries with laws that mandate the minimum wage an employer must pay an employee have higher unemployment rates than Ledland currently has.
C. People who are employed and look for a new job tend to get higher-paying jobs than job seekers who are unemployed.
D. The yearly amount unemployed people receive from government assistance is less than the yearly income that the government defines as the poverty level.
E. People sometimes accept jobs that pay relatively little simply because they enjoy the work.
我刚开始选的A，后来虽然觉得C是正确的单还是想问问A，如果改成[bgcolor=#ffff00]employed individuals and their families.是不是就可以选了？[/bgcolor]
理解为：如果这些人去工作，虽然他们收入不会曾加但却可以减少他们家人的税收，所以也是有利益刺激的？作者: 月夜圣童 时间: 2010-1-20 22:05
自己up~~~help~~~~作者: 月夜圣童 时间: 2010-1-21 16:32
没有人回答么？？？？难道是我想的太多了？？？？作者: 我心向明月 时间: 2010-1-22 01:43
关于A项的修改，英文部分好象缺少一些限制。中文理解了，同意楼主的思路。作者: 月夜圣童 时间: 2010-1-22 22:28
谢谢啦~~~总算听到一个赞同的声音~~呵呵作者: 追梦到底 时间: 2010-5-5 21:27
up作者: kuikuiofyours 时间: 2010-5-14 16:58
UP。A确实是一个问题啊。作者: kuikuiofyours 时间: 2010-5-14 17:04
我明白了！ 大家仔细看，题目中说：In Ledland, unemployed adults receive government assistance. 还说：the government proposes to supplement the income of those who accept jobs that pay less than government assistance。 也就是说，那些工资低于社保金的工作，会被补贴到和社保金一样的数量，A说不收税，但即使不收税，也不会让工资多余社保金吧！ 那既然补贴完的钱和呆在家里拿社保的钱是一样的，何必还要工作呢？作者: typhoon_wang 时间: 2010-5-15 21:51
我觉得答案是E
这样的话还去工作干吗?EDITORIAL 就conclusion that they have not fnancial incentive to go to work, remind uneployed. 所以要是weaked这个观点就选E? 我个人的看法
觉得C是无关选项,A是迷惑选项 欢迎咋忌惮...
对了 说下A吧 注意看题了 gov. will not tax on the people who are unemployed, on the other hand, it means they will tax on the people who are employed yet receive lower pay and on the same time receive some gov. assistance. so正好符合了EDTORAL 的观点了,是加强.
D直接说了政府给的补助也在贫苦线以下，那当然有incentive去找工作了啊作者: flywer 时间: 2011-5-1 20:22
我开始也选的D 但是想了想C还是好些 请注意Therefore前面的那句话，也就是注意这个结论是怎么推出来的 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. 这两句话翻译过来应该是怎样的：可是，如果失业的人无法找到有足够收入的工作的话，这笔工作收入加上政府给的工作补助还不如先前的救助金高。因此，面对着这样的补助，失业的人找不到能够趋势他们去找工作的financial incentive
也就是说，条件中是在将找了工作但是收入没有提高的人与没有工作的人作比较，从而得出了后面的结论 C.People who are employed and look for a new job tend to get higher-paying jobs than job seekers who are unemployed. 也就是说有了工作的人可以找一个新工作从而获得比没工作的人更高的收入，刚好是条件中给出的情况的weken D.The yearly amount unemployed people receive from government assistance is less than the yearly income that the government defines as the poverty level. 这个选项确实也很像正确答案，但是有一个问题，就是这个poverty level贫困水平 我觉得贫困水平跟工资的最低标准还是两个概念吧，如果说这个选项说的是失业人员的收入低于最低工资标准，那就非常好的提供了一个incentive 也就weaken了 但是这里说的是poverty level 失业的人领的救助金很低导致生活在贫困水平之下是很正常的事情啊，现实状况也大都是如此的，不能作为incentive的依据吧
个人感觉这题的financial incentive是key words open to discuss作者: wtylys 时间: 2011-8-4 14:08
我觉得Ｄ根本就是无关选项。。因为原文讨论的是没有工作只领取社保金的人和有工作但是工资低于社保金，然后补助到社保金水平的人，这两者之间的比较，与社保金有没有到达poverty lelvel直接联系。。。作者: Catherine0301 时间: 2011-9-6 16:15
E选项应该跟原文无关吧，文章说的是有没有financial incentive,而不是enjoy不enjoy工作···作者: Catherine0301 时间: 2011-9-6 16:17
E选项应该是无关吧，文章说的是是否financial incentive,而选项说的是是否enjoy工作作者: jay871750293 时间: 2012-4-11 11:01
谢谢各位~~
