[求助]很笨地問 GWD 25-3

Q3.

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

A.     attempts to assess how a certain change will affect potential members

of a group by providing evidence about its effect on the current members.

B.     mistakenly takes the cause of a certain change to be an effect of that change

C.     attempts to argue that a certain change will have a positive effect merely

by pointing to the absence of negative effects

D.     simply denies Mel’s claim without putting forward any evidence in support

of that denial

E.      assumes that changes that benefit the most able members of a group

necessarily benefit all members of that group.

為何答案為 A 呢? 我選C，麻煩高人指正一下，謝謝!

这种题第一眼看上去肯定会选C，因为C最直白。但我的感觉是，这类题型问你A怎么反驳B的一般都不是那么最简单的选项。

关键看题干：P对M的反对为什么不充分？

M说提高工资不能吸引好的candidates来当judge，因为将不允许他们去授课。P说现在的judge也没人去授课，所以不允许授课没影响。

很明显，现在的judge不去授课，不代表将来的candidates也不去授课阿。也许那些future judge现在授课赚的钱很多，如果真当了judge不允许授课，收入就少很多。

因此P的理论是：现在的judge不授课，将来的judge也不会去授课！

A中的关键词就是potential/current

我怎么觉得的应该是B？

B说因果倒置了。因此削弱了Pat的逻辑。judge们很少去授课恰恰是因为有ban在啊！

我也觉得是b。。。。。。。。因为这个legislature已经实行了has done，并且was coupled with禁止授课，所以很大程度减少了judge的收入，所以该法没用。(并没有说是将来的judge)

而p说，因为本来就没人上课，所以收入还是提高了，因此该法有用。

没人授课是由于该法令引起的，所以p是用原因来反对一个结果。

有没有人同意我的观点呢

B.      mistakenly takes the cause of a certain change to be an effect of that change

a certain change指的是实施ban，那么cause是什么？judges出去教书讲座呢，还是judges的工资低呢？

原题当中最多提到了effect，没有提到cause嘛，所以B是一定错的

同意B...

那c为什么不对