ChaseDream

标题: gwd-9-2 [打印本页]

作者: BBAC 时间: 2011-2-13 16:25
标题: gwd-9-2

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

答案选的是e，可我想选c 求助大家~~

作者: BBAC 时间: 2011-2-13 20:43
啊求助啊~~

作者: sdcar2010 时间: 2011-2-13 22:07
The arugment hinges on the assumption that once the tariff is lifted --> farmer will sell MORE of their products to international processing plants instead of domestic processing plants --> lay-offs in domestic processing plants --> higher unemployment rate in urban areas.

E) says if the government do not lift the tariff, more unemployed farmer will go to urban areas and pop up urban unemployement rate.

Therefore, E) points out one cause of the high unemployment rate in the urban area. Lifting tariff could remove that cause. With some luck, the new positions created for homecoming farmers might outnumber the pink slips sent for workers in processing plants! So the net result of such tariff change might reduce the urban unemployment rate!

Overall, E) makes the orginal argument less likely.

作者: BBAC 时间: 2011-2-13 23:31

The arugment hinges on the assumption that once the tariff is lifted --> farmer will sell MORE of their products to international processing plants instead of domestic processing plants --> lay-offs in domestic processing plants --> higher unemployment rate in urban areas.

E) says if the government do not lift the tariff, more unemployed farmer will go to urban areas and pop up urban unemployement rate.

Therefore, E) points out one cause of the high unemployment rate in the urban area. Lifting tariff could remove that cause. With some luck, the new positions created for homecoming farmers might outnumber the pink slips sent for workers in processing plants! So the net result of such tariff change might reduce the urban unemployment rate!

Overall, E) makes the orginal argument less likely.

-- by 会员 sdcar2010 (2011/2/13 22:07:41)

谢谢~~听你这么一说我似乎能理解e了
题中的观点是取消关税导致城市失业率上升，e是说不取消关税，农民都离开土地进入城市，失业率一样会上升是这样理解吗？
可关于c，我还有点疑问，要weaken这个观点，可不可以理解为，就是说即使取消关税了失业率也不会上升，取消关税->农民继续种地但加工厂会倒闭->倒闭的工人可以变成农民，这样理解的话，失业率也没有上升啊？我觉得，如果说e是否定的条件，那c是否定的结论。关于这种weaken的题，这两种角度是不是都可以呢？请指正~~

作者: sdcar2010 时间: 2011-2-13 23:59
C is out of scope. The argument focuses on "urban unemployment". Who cares about farmers who stay in the countryside!!!

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