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.
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.
C is out of scope. The argument focuses on "urban unemployment". Who cares about farmers who stay in the countryside!!! C also has no concrete info about urban employment changes which might be impacted by the tariff.
-- by 会员 sdcar2010 (2011/4/4 9:16:52)
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.
C is out of scope. The argument focuses on "urban unemployment". Who cares about farmers who stay in the countryside!!! C also has no concrete info about urban employment changes which might be impacted by the tariff.
-- by 会员 sdcar2010 (2011/4/4 9:16:52)
谢谢你关于E的解释，很明白。现在就是对D有点不理解。D是不是对结论起了部分支持作用？
-- by 会员 monica315 (2011/5/4 5:46:56)