标题: GWD-TN-24 Q10 答案是否有问题？不解，求教！ [打印本页] 作者: sunspirit2011 时间: 2011-10-1 17:11 标题: GWD-TN-24 Q10 答案是否有问题？不解，求教！ Q10:TTGWD11-Q30: Editorial: In Ledland, unemployed adults receivegovernment assistance. To reduceunemployment, the government proposes to supplement the income of those whoaccept jobs that pay less than government assistance, thus enabling employersto hire workers cheaply. However, thesupplement will not raise any worker’s income above what government assistancewould provide if he or she were not gainfully employed. Therefore, unemployed people will have nofinancial incentive to accept jobs that would entitle them to the supplement. Which ofthe following, if true about Ledland, most seriously weakens the argument ofthe editorial? A. The government collects notaxes on assistance it provides to unemployed individuals and their families. B. Neighboring countries with laws that mandatethe minimum wage an employer must pay an employee have higher unemploymentrates than Ledland currently has.（边上国家，无关） C. People who are employed and lookfor a new job tend to get higher-paying jobs than job seekers who areunemployed. D. The yearly amount unemployed people receivefrom government assistance is less than the yearly income that the governmentdefines as the poverty level.（无关比较） E. People sometimes accept jobs that payrelatively little simply because they enjoy the work.（原文说unemployed adults，这里说people，讨论范围转移；sometimes排除）
我选了A，A说对事业者和其家庭的补助是不征税的，这就是一个financial incentive呀。C我认为是无关比较，已经就业寻找新工作的人趋向于获得更高薪水的工作，相比于还没有工作的找工作的人。作者: tutulee 时间: 2011-10-2 10:39
c 对。 editorial 的辩论依据是，政府给有工作的人的补贴的上限就是政府给失业者的补贴。因为工作和不工作拿一样多。所以失业的人没有incentive 接受工作。 C. 说有了工作的话，更容易找到更高工资的工作。这样虽然开始的工作收入不高于政府能补贴的上限，他们更有可能找到工资高于补贴上限的工作，就给失业的人incentive 工作了。作者: earlytear 时间: 2011-10-2 22:02
A 方向反了 实际是支持了 补助不收税，更加不想工作了