ChaseDream

标题: GWD17 急求~~谢谢啦 [打印本页]

作者: 狂威雪 时间: 2011-6-11 12:23
标题: GWD17 急求~~谢谢啦
16: GWD-29-Q8
Which of the following, if true, provides evidence that most logically completes the argument below?
According to a widely held economic hypothesis, imposing strict environmental regulations reduces economic growth. This hypothesis is undermined by the fact that the states with the strictest environmental regulations also have the highest economic growth. This fact does not show that environmental regulations promote growth, however, since ______.
根据广泛认为的经济假设，提出了严格的环境控制削弱经济的增长。这个假设被现在的事实削弱，有个州实行严格的环境控制，经济增长很大。然而这个事实没有说明环境控制促进经济增长，因为有严格环境控制的周把绝大部分投资花在了教育和岗位培训上了。
A.   those states with the strictest environmental regulations invest the most in education and job training
B.   even those states that have only moderately strict environmental regulations have higher growth than those with the least-strict regulations
C.   many states that are experiencing reduced economic growth are considering weakening their environmental regulations
D.   after introducing stricter environmental regulations, many states experienced increased economic growth
E.   even those states with very weak environmental regulations have experienced at least some growth
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
答案是A, 把钱花在教育和培训上经济就能增长吗？

作者: sdcar2010 时间: 2011-6-11 20:03
This is a weakening type question.
A) simply proclaims that there is another reason to explain the economic growth. Whether investment in eduation and job training would lead to economic growth is not proven right or wrong. But it is a possible reason. That is enough to cast an unfavorable light on the hypothesis the author is trying to undermine.

作者: 狂威雪 时间: 2011-6-11 23:22
谢谢啦~~

作者: ruirui_hsu 时间: 2011-8-2 21:24

This is a weakening type question.
A) simply proclaims that there is another reason to explain the economic growth. Whether investment in eduation and job training would lead to economic growth is not proven right or wrong. But it is a possible reason. That is enough to cast an unfavorable light on the hypothesis the author is trying to undermine.

-- by 会员 sdcar2010 (2011/6/11 20:03:38)

How about C? The C goes in another way that reducing the regulations will promot the economic growht, the situation that is reversed with fact that regulations promote the growth.

作者: sdcar2010 时间: 2011-8-3 00:25
many states that are experiencing reduced economic growth are considering weakening their environmental regulations

This is simply a consideration, not a concrete demonstration of cause-effect relationship.

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