求解OG11-91, 96

大家有没有发现,OG的逻辑题从90题以后开始逐渐变得比较难了,我错了很多,在这里向大家请教一下其中的两道题目

91.  Businesses are suffering because of a lack of money available for development loans. To help businesses, the government plans to modify the income tax structure in order to induce individual taxpayers to put a larger portion of their incomes into retirement savings accounts, because as more money is deposited in such accounts, more money becomes available to borrowers.

Which of the following, if true, raises the most serious doubt regarding the effectivenessof the government's plan to increase the amount of money available for development loans for business?

A. when level of personal retirement savings increase, consumer borrowing always increases correspondingly.

B. The increased tax revenue the government would receive as a result of business expansion would not offset the loss in revenue from personal income taxes during the first year of the plan

C Even with tax incentives, some people wil  choose not to increase theirlevels of retirement savings.

此题答案选A, 但我觉得A不是加强的说法吗,一点削弱的关系都没有啊.

楼上的正解

如果排除的话，我起初看B觉得有点意思，不过再仔细一看，B讨论的主体完全是政府的得失，和题干中需要讨论的收益主体——BUSINEE，完全不同，所以排除。

C更是没有道理啦， SOME PEOPLE WILL NOT CHOOOSE TO DO SO 不等于大部分人或所有人不会这样做。如果SOME换成MOST，就还有点道理了。

我觉得在ASSUMPTION中，选择正确答案应该力争语言保守点的。

但是在JUSTIFY中，尤其是MOST SERIOUSLY WEAKENS这样的题目中，SOME或者MOST的取舍就和ASSUMPTION题目不一样啦。

比如在这一题中，反驳者会说1.题目中并没有人说所有人都会将钱存入退休帐户，所有有人不存很正常，根本就没矛盾；2.有些人不存不代表所有人或者大部分人不存。事实上，不要求所有人都存入退休帐户，只要此方案实施后退休帐户的钱比原来多就够了，那么这个方案就是实际有效了。