1.        
T-9-Q2.
            

Kernland imposes
a high tariff on the export of unprocessed cashew nuts in order to ensure that
the nuts are sold to domestic processing plants. If the tariff were lifted and
unprocessed were sold at world market prices, more farmers could profit
            by growing cashews. However, since all the processing
plants are in urban areas, removing the tariff would seriously hamper the
government ‘s effort to reduce urban unemployment over the next five years.

Which of the
following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

1. Some of the
                       by-products
        of processing cashews are used for manufacturing plants and plastics
2. Other countries in
        which cashews are processed subsidize their processing plants
                       
3. More people in kernland
        are engaged in farming cashews than in processing them
4. Buying
        unprocessed cashews at lower than world market prices enables cashew
        processors in kernland to sell processed nuts at competitive prices
5. A lack of profitable
        crops is driving an increasing number of small farmers in kernland off
        their land and into the cities

首先，此题考到LIFT的另一个意思：撤销

自己的理解：

 因为tariff were lifted--àfarmer could profit  那么，farmer由于lack profit跑到城市--à说明不撤销tariff 会增加城市失业率(E)

             这就weaken了结论：removing tariff---à增加失业率

E 說農民缺乏獲利，一群一群小農民會湧進大城市，將於接下來五年危及政府降低失業率的目的，並不是因為在城市的加工廠拿不到便宜價格的未加工品而增加失業率，為無因有果的削弱選項。雖然選項未談到(危及政府降低失業率的目的)，但我已經做過好幾題都是這種解題選項，想了一下，新東方老師提過削弱選項只要達成削弱效果就好，不像歸納、假設題目這麼嚴謹。

D 說加工廠可買到價格低的未加工品，而有競爭力，失業率按推論應該不會惡化，為加強選項

这道题目我和楼主一样选错了.但是我还是有一个问题,

Kernland imposes a high tariff on the export of unprocessed cashew nuts in order to ensure that the nuts are sold to domestic processing plants. If the tariff were lifted and unprocessed were sold at world market prices, more farmers could profit
            by growing cashews. However, since all the processing plants are in urban areas, removing the tariff would seriously hamper the government ‘s effort to reduce urban unemployment over the next five years.

题目里面的tariff到底是要升高还是降低呢？

tariff is going to removed, i think...

very confusing question...

和LS同样的问题

未加工的腰果出口关税增加是为了保护国内的加工工业。如果出口关税取消的话，未加工的腰果就会以国际价格出售，于是更多的农民会受益。但是，因为所有的加工工业都在城市里面，去除出口关税就会严重影响政府想要在将来五年内降低城市失业率的计划。

那么既然 农民都会受益，他们怎么可能涌到城市里面，从而提高失业率呢

实在不理解

注意这里的lift不是常见的“提升”的意思，而是“to remove a rule or a law that says that something is not allowed”例句：The government plans to lift its ban on cigar imports.

原文的推理是这样的：a high tariff ----〉are sold to domestic processing plants ，但是因为没有tariff了，所以nuts就直接卖给国外而不卖给这些城里的加工厂了，所以导致了城里的加工厂没生意，然后失业率就升高了。

而E说an increasing number of small farmers这些人会涌向城市，所以A lack of profitable crops这才是导致失业率提高的原因，所以weaken

 而D只说  enables cashew processors in kernland to sell processed nuts at competitive prices，并不会weaken

突然大悟，这道题应该是因果关系的断桥削弱

原文推理：政府提高出口关税--〉提高了国内腰果在国际市场的价格（但在国内卖就依然是国际价格）--〉阻止本国腰果外销--〉卖给本国处理厂商--〉增加农民种植--〉增加腰果也就增加城市处理厂的工作量--〉增加就业

   也就是说腰果种植--〉就业，同时因果关系也是这个方向

   现在E说了：农作物利润下降--〉大量农民涌入城市--〉就业下降，不同的原因，同样的结果，异因同果的断桥削弱

同没想通。降低关税——>农民受益，怎么又lack of profit了呢？