Bank depositors in the United States are all financially protected against bank failure because the government insures all individuals' bank deposits. An economist argues that this insurance is partly responsible for the high rate of bank failures, since it removes from depositors any financial incentive to find out whether the bank that holds their money is secure against failure. If depositors were more selective, then banks would need to be secure in order to compete for depositors' money.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the economist's argument?
(A) Before the government started to insure depositors against bank failure, there was a lower rate of bank failure than there is now.
(B) When the government did not insure deposits, frequent bank failures occurred as a result of depositors' fears of losing money in bank failures.
(C) Surveys show that a significant proportion of depositors are aware that their deposits are insured by the government.
(D) There is an upper limit on the amount of an individual's deposit that the government will insure, but very few individuals' deposits exceed this limit.
(E) The security of a bank against failure depends on the percentage of its assets that are loaned out and also on how much risk its loans involve.
答案选B。
我想请教为什么E不对，我觉得E是它因削弱呀，请牛人帮忙解答一下，谢谢！！！作者: flyincat 时间: 2010-5-16 14:55
你能说下你觉得E哪里在削弱么？我觉得percentage of its assets, risk of its loan都是原文根本没提到的概念，对削弱没有一点影响啊。B却是直接指出和原文argument直接相反的结果，所以削弱啊作者: fengyeming 时间: 2010-5-17 20:41
就是原文认为是政府的问题，E说银行破产的问题是depend on the percentage of its assets that are loaned out and also on how much risk its loans involve，然后我觉得既然破产时depend on...的，所以是削弱啊！！作者: 熊熊加小怪 时间: 2010-5-17 21:22
lz，，E选项不是他因削弱。