Mel: The official salary for judges has always been too low to attract the best candidates to the job. The legislature’s move to raise the salary has done nothing to improve the situation, because it was coupled with a ban on receiving money for lectures and teaching engagements. Raise salary has done nothing（没用），因为ban was coupled.
Pat:No, the raise in salary really does improve the situation. Since very few judges teach or give lectures, the ban will have little or no negative effect. 不，the raise does（有用）。因为没有judges teach或者give lectures，ban没有消极作用。
Pat’s response to Mel is inadequate in that it
A.attempts to assess how a certain change will affect potential membersof a group by providing evidence about its effect on the current members. （如果原文说，M的结论raise will do nothing而不是has done nothing，且P的the ban has little而不是will have little-will have little说明不是current members，则A正确）
B.mistakenly takes the cause of a certain change to be an effect of that change （M：change是raise salary，原因是salary for judge too low to attract best candidates；change的结果是has done nothing to improve the situation；change 无效的原因是ban。P：change有效，因为ban无效。Change是raise salary，而不是raise salary无效。）
C.attempts to argue that a certain change will have a positive effect merely by pointing to the absence of negative effects
D.simply denies Mel’s claim without putting forward any evidence in supportof that denial
E.assumes that changes that benefit the most able members of a groupnecessarily benefit all members of that group.
这道题GWD的CR解释力没有标准答案啊~我认为选C，各位NN觉得呢？open to discuss~作者: HarrisZheng 时间: 2011-12-5 21:37
我的意见是本题的中心不是讨论钱有没有增加，加钱是手段，目的是吸引更多的人来当法官。所以他们讨论的焦点是法官的职位是不是变得更吸引人。
问题问的是Pat's response is inadequate because...实际上也就是问Pat的逻辑错误