ChaseDream
搜索
返回列表 发新帖
00:00:00

Each increase of 1 percent in real disposable personal income per capita will increase the share of the electorate for an incumbent by about 2.2 percentage points, other things being equal. Since 1952 there has been a decline in real disposable income during only one presidential election year. The incumbent lost that election.

Which of the following conclusions can be properly drawn from the statements above?

正确答案: E

更多相关帖子

524

帖子

15

好友

4712

积分

ChaseDream

注册时间
2003-03-17
精华
8
解析
查看: 1622|回复: 4
打印 上一主题 下一主题

大全-II-4<---ethyl修改标题( 再问大全testII的第4题)

[复制链接]
楼主
发表于 2005-8-30 14:51:00 | 只看该作者

大全-II-4<---ethyl修改标题( 再问大全testII的第4题)

再问大全testII的第4题


Each increase of 1 percent in real disposable personal income per capita will increase the share of the electorate for an incumbent by about 2.2 percentage points, other things being equal. Since 1952 there has been a decline in real disposable income during only one presidential election year. The incumbent lost that election.


Which of the following conclusions can be properly drawn from the statements above?


(A) When an incumbent runs for office, he or she is likely to win.


(B) Political parties should take care to put forth a candidate who seems prosperous.


(C) Presidential candidates should put their greatest efforts into improving their public image.


(D) Because a presidential campaign requires the expenditure of large amounts of money, it frequently impoverishes a candidate and his or her supporters.E


        (E) The outcome of a presidential election is substantially affected by factors other than the ideological positions of the candidates.


      偶不明白为什么选E,原文前提说人均收入增长1%投票率就增长2.2%,然后自从收入下降The incumbent lost that election,这不恰好说明presidential election is substantially affected by income吗?这是我所想的逻辑关系,虽然没有关于这个的选项...不懂为什么为什么又来一个ideological positions of the candidates,跟presidential election 以及disposable personal income per capita 有什么关系啊?请大家帮忙,谢谢!!!


沙发
发表于 2005-8-30 19:50:00 | 只看该作者

关于发帖格式请参考:


http://forum.chasedream.com/dispbbs.asp?boardID=24&ID=74827&page=1


大全的讨论在本区置顶的讨论汇总贴里面,请楼主发新贴之前先查看,谢谢合作哈!


http://forum.chasedream.com/dispbbs.asp?boardID=24&ID=87513&page=1

板凳
 楼主| 发表于 2005-8-31 12:09:00 | 只看该作者

好的,以后一定按格式发贴,不过这题我还是不明白,斑竹可以帮忙解释解释吗?连接我在发问前已经看过了,但是还是不明白~~


非常感谢!

地板
 楼主| 发表于 2005-8-31 22:46:00 | 只看该作者

自己顶一下~


偶不明白为什么选E,原文前提说人均收入增长1%投票率就增长2.2%,然后自从收入下降The incumbent lost that election,这不恰好说明presidential election is substantially affected by income吗?这是我所想的逻辑关系,虽然没有关于这个的选项...不懂为什么为什么又来一个ideological positions of the candidates,跟presidential election 以及disposable personal income per capita 有什么关系啊?请大家帮忙,谢谢!!!

5#
发表于 2005-9-1 21:49:00 | 只看该作者
以下是引用dreamerps在2005-8-31 22:46:00的发言:

自己顶一下~


偶不明白为什么选E,原文前提说人均收入增长1%投票率就增长2.2%,然后自从收入下降The incumbent lost that election,这不恰好说明presidential election is substantially affected by income吗?这是我所想的逻辑关系,虽然没有关于这个的选项...不懂为什么为什么又来一个ideological positions of the candidates,跟presidential election 以及disposable personal income per capita 有什么关系啊?请大家帮忙,谢谢!!!


ideological positions前面不是还有个other than的嘛!就是说当选不当选很大程度上受到除了意识形态因素的影响。。。

什么是“除了意识形态的因素”,那就包括是否能提高老百姓的收入啦!

题中整个就在说能提高老性收入就能获得高支持率。。。

您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 立即注册

Mark一下! 看一下! 顶楼主! 感谢分享! 快速回复:

手机版|ChaseDream|GMT+8, 2024-11-6 00:27
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号

ChaseDream 论坛

© 2003-2023 ChaseDream.com. All Rights Reserved.

返回顶部