本贴相关题目 TN-16-CR-3 (CNYR)

00:00:00

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.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.

Pat's response to Mel is inadequate in that it

Aattempts to assess how a certain change will affect potential members of a group by providing evidence about its effect on the current members.
Bmistakenly takes the cause of a certain change to be an effect of that change
Cattempts to argue that a certain change will have a positive effect merely by pointing to the absence of negative effects
Dsimply denies Mel's claim without putting forward any evidence in support of that denial
Eassumes that changes that benefit the most able members of a group necessarily benefit all members of that group.

正确答案: A

GWD16-3求助！！想了好久都没有明白为什么是A~~

[复制链接]

sdcar2010

楼主

发表于 2010-12-2 22:28:16 | 显示全部楼层

The argument centers on how to attract the best candidates to become FUTURE judges. These future judges are "potential members of a group." Pat's response focuses on current judges, or "current members." Although current judges seldom teach or give lecture, future judges might want to do these thing for all kinds of reasons, especially if these future judges are ambitious or with high potential. If you want to attract this type of future judges, you have to heed their needs. The ban will hurt the prospect to attract the best and the brightest future candidates and turn them away to other, more accommodating positions. Therefore, answer A is the right answer to point out this flaw in Pat's response.