ChaseDream
搜索
12下一页
返回列表 发新帖
00:00:00

Which of the following, if true, provides evidence that most logically completes the argument below?

According to a widely held economic hypothesis, imposing strict environmental regulations reduces economic growth. This hypothesis is undermined by the fact that the states with the strictest environmental regulations also have the highest economic growth. This fact does not show that environmental regulations promote growth, however, since ______.

正确答案: A

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: 9064|回复: 15
打印 上一主题 下一主题

请教GWD-29-Q8,搜索不到讨论答案

[复制链接]
跳转到指定楼层
楼主
发表于 2010-7-17 07:01:47 | 只看该作者 回帖奖励 |倒序浏览 |阅读模式
GWD-29-Q8
Which of the following, if true, provides evidence that most logically completes the argument below?

According to a widely held economic hypothesis, imposing strict environmental regulations reduces economic growth.This hypothesis is undermined by the fact that the states with the strictest environmental regulations also have the highest
economic growth.This fact does not show that environmental regulations promote growth, however, since ___
A.those states with the strictest environmental regulations invest the most in education and job training

B.even those states that have only moderately strict environmental regulations have higher growth than those with the least-strict regulations

C.many states that are experiencing reduced economic growth are considering weakening their environmental regulations

D.after introducing stricter environmental regulations, many states experienced increased economic growth


E.even those states with very weak environmental regulations have experienced at least some growth

GWD答案是a, 我选的C。
根据逆否命题,如果正在经历经济增长率减少的国家正在考虑削弱他们的环境管制可以推出增强环境管制就可以提高这些国家的经济增长率。为什么C不对呢?A的话好像他因的也说不过去啊。大家来讨论一下。


收藏收藏 收藏收藏
沙发
 楼主| 发表于 2010-7-18 12:34:29 | 只看该作者
帖子要默默沉下去了 自己顶一下
板凳
发表于 2010-7-18 13:20:02 | 只看该作者
本题中出现了一个conflict,restrict regulations---economic reduced,但是有一个fact于此有冲突,所以解释这个冲突只能是他因导致结果,就是job training和education是economic 进步的原因。C没有解释矛盾,而且是considering。。。
地板
 楼主| 发表于 2010-7-19 07:09:27 | 只看该作者
本题中出现了一个conflict,restrict regulations---economic reduced,但是有一个fact于此有冲突,所以解释这个冲突只能是他因导致结果,就是job training和education是economic 进步的原因。C没有解释矛盾,而且是considering。。。
-- by 会员 nanisoga (2010/7/18 13:20:02)



谢谢,可是文中也没有说job training和education可以促进经济增长啊,感觉还是少了一个assumption
5#
发表于 2010-7-21 20:14:33 | 只看该作者
This fact does not show that environmental regulations promote growth, however, since ___

最后这一句话是否能理解成,作者已经肯定了“环保规定最严格的地区经济发展最快这个事实,并没有证明是环保规定促进了该地区经济的发展,However, .. ”

我觉得前面的一段我翻译的应该对,只是,However,在这里其什么作用? 后面需要引导出什么内容才能完成这个完整的逻辑? 请各位NN帮助。谢谢。
6#
发表于 2010-7-21 23:08:29 | 只看该作者
我觉得吧,题目是故意说的很罗嗦让人迷惑的。如果把题目换成--环保规定最严格的地区经济发展最快,所以环保规定促进了该地区经济的发展。 weaken这个逻辑--我想大家都会选择经济好不是环保的原因,而是其他原因。而如果assumption,就会选排除它因。都是一个道理。

其实,我自己感觉,可以把填空当作weaken或者support来作,通常填空的问题,作者都会对某个逻辑结论提出自己的想法,如果认为逻辑链是对的,那么就当support来作,反之,就是weaken。其实不过就是换一种问法而已。

浅见哈,一起讨论。
7#
发表于 2010-7-24 18:24:35 | 只看该作者
明白了,一下子清楚好多,谢谢wangsiwei!
8#
发表于 2010-8-11 10:21:58 | 只看该作者
那弱弱的问一下...

A可不可以这样理解呢?:
those states with the strictest environmental regulations invest in education and job training,而这些education和job training 都是与环境保护相关的,就是说还是由于环境控制promote economic growth...?

如果是这样的话还是解释不了啊?
9#
发表于 2010-8-17 17:06:04 | 只看该作者
那弱弱的问一下...

A可不可以这样理解呢?:
those states with the strictest environmental regulations invest in education and job training,而这些education和job training 都是与环境保护相关的,就是说还是由于环境控制promote economic growth...?

如果是这样的话还是解释不了啊?
-- by 会员 mandyliang7 (2010/8/11 10:21:58)


既然题目没有说这些education与环保有关,我们似乎没有必要想太多吧~
10#
发表于 2010-9-17 22:34:00 | 只看该作者
怎么我觉得是e呢? 意思:即使许多没有强制环保的state也能保证经济的增长,也就是环保不是促进经济增长的因素
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, 2024-11-27 03:47
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