When limitations were in effect on nuclear-arms testing, people tended to save more of their money, but when nuclear-arms testing increased, people tended to spend more of their money. The perceived threat of nuclear catastrophe, therefore, decreases the willingness of people to postpone consumption for the sake of saving money.
The argument above assumes that
(C) people’s perception of the threat of nuclear catastrophe depends on the amount of nuclear-arms testing being done（C）
(E) there are more consumer goods available when nuclear-arms testing increases
C固然是对的，可是E又错在哪里呢？Spend more of their money的前提不是有more
goods availbable吗？再说如果对E取非，没有more goods availbale，那么spend more money不就不成立了？
首先，E的重心就错了。consumer goods和原文是无关的。
其次，spend more money 不等于more consumer goods available. 举个反例，consumer goods和以前一样多，但是涨价了，仍然可以导致spend more money.
mindfree老大正解！
我举反例只是帮助说明这个问题，做题的时候关键是要有反应出spend more money和more consumer goods是无关的。然后直接排除。
The perceived threat of nuclear catastrophe, therefore, decreases the willingness of people to postpone consumption for the sake of saving money
偶不太理解上面这句话得意思，哪位知道可以给解释一下吗？？many thanks
The perceived threat of nuclear catastrophe, therefore, decreases the willingness of people to postpone consumption for the sake of saving money
偶不太理解上面这句话得意思，哪位知道可以给解释一下吗？？many thanks
The perceived threat of nuclear catastrophe, therefore, decreases the willingness of people to postpone consumption for the sake of saving money
偶不太理解上面这句话得意思，哪位知道可以给解释一下吗？？many thanks
就是人们如果觉得有核灾难的威胁，就不再为了推迟消费而存钱了。
楼上的MM，我觉得你的翻译有点点问题：人们如果觉得有核灾难的威胁，就不再为了推迟消费而存钱了。——应该是人们如果觉得有核灾难的威胁，就不再因为存钱而延迟消费了吧？
应该是为了存钱而推迟消费，同意！这道题好像不能用除非法做，因为选项是结论的充分条件，要是用除非法做，违反逻辑了。
可是文章中并没有提到C中的nuclear-arms testing的数量阿阿~~~有可能还是nuclear-arms testing的严重程度阿
help~~~
| 欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/) | Powered by Discuz! X3.3 |