While Governor Verdant has been in office, the state’s budget has increased by an average of 6 percent each year. While the previous governor was in office, the state’s budget increased by an average of 11.5 percent each year. Obviously, the austere budgets during Governor Verdant’s term have caused the slowdown in the growth in state spending.
Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the conclusion drawn above?
(A) The rate of inflation in the state averaged 10 percent each year during the previous governor’s term in office and 3 percent each year during Verdant’s term.
如果去掉通胀的话，还是Governor Verdant 的budget增长慢阿？可是为什么A对
去掉通货膨胀，如果单纯从数字上加减：Governor Verdant 是6-3=3，previous governor 是11.5-10=1.5
如果不是单纯的从数字角度理解：可以理解为预算大的时候通货膨胀严重，因此是个他因，削弱结论：严苛的政府预算导致消费水平下降
去掉通货膨胀，如果单纯从数字上加减：Governor Verdant 是6-3=3，previous governor 是11.5-10=1.5
如果不是单纯的从数字角度理解：可以理解为预算大的时候通货膨胀严重，因此是个他因，削弱结论：严苛的政府预算导致消费水平下降
从数字角度解释看懂了,很清楚. 不过感觉这是不是专业知识呢,ETS是把他作为应该具备的常识来考啊....
从非数字角度解释还不是很懂, 通货膨胀严重的时候消费应该是增加还是削弱呢?
而且E为什么不对呢,说明现在消费的削减是前任政府的政策的作用....请NN帮忙
无关词排除法除了归纳题，其他的题型尤其是削弱题，我觉得不要一开始就用这个办法。除非到了最后，两个答案都能起到题目要求的作用，我们就选最接近文章，也就是最limit的那个答案。
削弱可以是削弱结论（前提推结论），这样的答案一般是和文章联系紧密地。但是如果是因果型的，削弱就削弱原因，找一个其它原因，完全可以出现文中根本没有提到的东西。
共同探讨！
谢谢cicilla, 看来每个选项都必须看完阿，看一半都有危险。。。
再问：1。通胀严重时消费是增加还是削弱？
2。 为什么E不对呢？
请NN帮助。
自己顶一下...
再顶....
13. While Governor Verdant has been in office, the state’s budget has increased by an average of 6 percent each year. While the previous governor was in office, the state’s budget increased by an average of 11.5 percent each year. Obviously, the austere budgets during Governor Verdant’s term have caused the slowdown in the growth in state spending.
Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the conclusion drawn above?
(A) The rate of inflation in the state averaged 10 percent each year during the previous governor’s term in office and 3 percent each year during Verdant’s term.
(B) Both federal and state income tax rates have been lowered considerably during Verdant’s term in office.
(C) In each year of Verdant’s term in office, the state’s budget has shown some increase in spending over the previous year.
(D) During Verdant’s term in office, the state has either discontinued or begun to charge private citizens for numerous services that the state offered free to citizens during the previous governor’s term.（A）
(E) During the previous governor’s term in office, the state introduced several so-called “austerity” budgets intended to reduce the growth in state spending.
E为什么不对呢,说明现在消费的削减是前任政府的政策的作用....请NN帮忙
同问E项
同因但不同果，不是很好的反对吗？
(E) During the previous governor’s term in office, the state introduced several so-called “austerity” budgets intended to reduce the growth in state spending.
E为什么不对呢,说明现在消费的削减是前任政府的政策的作用....请NN帮忙
E这个选项自己演绎太多了吧，选项里从没说到前任实施的“austerity” budgets 作用一直持续到Governor Verdant执政的时候啊。
我想问的是，D选项错在哪里？前任免费的SERVICE，他现在收费或者取消了，不就节省开支了吗？
恭候NN指教！！
(C) In each year of Verdant’s term in office, the state’s budget has shown some increase in spending over the previous year.
--C中的"some increase"（有一些增长）跟原文中的“增长缓慢”吻合，不冲突
(D) During Verdant’s term in office, the state has either discontinued or begun to charge private citizens for numerous services that the state offered free to citizens during the previous governor’s term.
--budget 分为收入与支出两部分。结论说的是：budget减少从而导致政府开支（state spending）增长的缓慢。D只说了收入可以得到增加，但与开销（spending）的关系不知道（收入多开销不一定也多）。因此不具有明确的因果关系
(E) During the previous governor’s term in office, the state introduced several so-called “austerity” budgets intended to reduce the growth in state spending.
--1、本题说的是现政府，跟以前政府的做法没有关系;
2、就算是有关系，E中的intended to reduce也没有说清楚austere budgets到底有没有reduce the growth in spending
3、而且就算是reduce了，也只能是加强结论：严格的预算导致了开销增长的缓慢。
(C) In each year of Verdant’s term in office, the state’s budget has shown some increase in spending over the previous year.
--C中的"some increase"（有一些增长）跟原文中的“增长缓慢”吻合，不冲突
(D) During Verdant’s term in office, the state has either discontinued or begun to charge private citizens for numerous services that the state offered free to citizens during the previous governor’s term.
--budget 分为收入与支出两部分。结论说的是：budget减少从而导致政府开支（state spending）增长的缓慢。D只说了收入可以得到增加，但与开销（spending）的关系不知道（收入多开销不一定也多）。因此不具有明确的因果关系
(E) During the previous governor’s term in office, the state introduced several so-called “austerity” budgets intended to reduce the growth in state spending.
--1、本题说的是现政府，跟以前政府的做法没有关系;
2、就算是有关系，E中的intended to reduce也没有说清楚austere budgets到底有没有reduce the growth in spending
3、而且就算是reduce了，也只能是加强结论：严格的预算导致了开销增长的缓慢。
(C) In each year of Verdant’s term in office, the state’s budget has shown some increase in spending over the previous year.
--C中的"some increase"（有一些增长）跟原文中的“增长缓慢”吻合，不冲突
Agree..
in addition, in C) Verdant compared with himself each year..
"in spending over the previous year" -- so year 2 is more than year 1 in spending, year 3 is more than year 2...therefore not correct anser
同问
我的理解是 原文结论：紧缩的预算导致了开销增长的缓慢
A中说了通货膨胀这个因素，根据前面的数字计算结果，Governor Verdant 是6-3=3，previous governor 是11.5-10=1.5也就是说实际上，财政预算并没有减少，所以不是紧缩的预算导致了开销增长的缓慢，从而削弱了结论。
是这样的马，还是觉得有点别扭
高通胀导致高物价.所以,尽管上一政府的预算较高,但是同时由于其物价水平也高于现在,所以预算所产生的实际效果(govt. spending)还不如现在(同样的钱买不到同样的东西了)
thanks for your explanation同意!~
我觉得作为因果题,其中一个削弱方法就是他因.通涨高本来就可以作为他因说明为什么老政府执政时开支增加快的原因.同时也可以说明并不是现任政府的预算少,因为减去通涨,3%的增长比1.5%的增长实际上还多.所以不能以现在表面上的增长率慢些来得出结论.
同意!~
我觉得作为因果题,其中一个削弱方法就是他因.通涨高本来就可以作为他因说明为什么老政府执政时开支增加快的原因.同时也可以说明并不是现任政府的预算少,因为减去通涨,3%的增长比1.5%的增长实际上还多.所以不能以现在表面上的增长率慢些来得出结论.
计算的话，不是应该用除法吗？
6%/（1+3%）从通涨的意义来考虑
虽然我同意这个答案
谁来结结实实的讲一遍 ho
完整的 晕
偶现在也似懂非懂，觉得需要专业知识，晕死了
看来功力还差的远
通涨10%说明平均物价上涨了10%,相同数量的钱只能购买更少的东西了..老政府虽然开支增加11.5%,其中增加的10%是用来抵消通涨的. 其实际开支只增加了1.5%.而新政府只有3%的钱用来抵消通涨的,其实际开支增加了3%.新政府的钱比老政府值呢,虽然绝对值少,但相对来说可以买更多东西---因为物价也低.
为啥不是C选项呢？？
大侠来说说。。。
(D) During Verdant’s term in office, the state has either discontinued or begun to charge private (问一下牛牛，这句话怎么理解， 怎么感觉discoutinued 和begun是反的啊！)citizens for numerous services that the state offered free to citizens during the previous governor’s term.
From my point of view, D seems more likely to suppor the conclusion in the question rather than weaken it. D gives an explaination why there is only 6% increse in the state speeding sice some revenue is closed and something new is open. However, it is not sufficient to support the exact data listed in the arg. Anyway, D never weaken the conclusion any more.
Open to discussing...
From my point of view, D seems more likely to suppor the conclusion in the question rather than weaken it. D gives an explaination why there is only 6% increse in the state speeding sice some revenue is closed and something new is open. However, it is not sufficient to support the exact data listed in the arg. Anyway, D never weaken the conclusion any more.
Open to discussing...
谢谢！
| 欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/) | Powered by Discuz! X3.3 |