|
49. Economist: The most economically efficient way to reduce emissions of air pollutants is to tax them in proportion to the damage they are likely to cause. But in Country Y, many serious pollutants are untaxed and unregulated, and policy makers strongly oppose new taxes. Therefore, the best way to achieve a reduction in air pollutant emissions in Country Y would be to institute fixed upper limits on them. Which of the following is an assumption of the economist’s argument? (A) Policy makers in Country Y oppose all new taxes equally strongly, regardless of any benefits they may provide. (B) Country Y’s air pollutant emissions would not fall significantly if they were taxed in proportion to the damage they are likely to cause. (C) Policy makers in Country Y strongly favor reductions in air pollutant emissions. (D) Country Y’s policy makers believe that air pollutant emissions should be reduced with maximum economic efficiency. (E) Policy makers in Country Y do not oppose setting fixed upper limits on air pollutant emissions as strongly as they oppose new taxes.
感觉这个是新题，搜了一下没在论坛找到分析的。我的分析： 因果推理： 前提: 经济上最有效的方法是释放多少有毒气体交多少的税。但是在Y地 policy maker 是强烈否定这个交税的方法。 结论：所以在Y地的最好的方法是在释放有毒气体加上限。 为什么在Y地最好的方法是有毒气体加上限？ 因为policy maker强烈否定交税的，其中有一个gap，选项中需要分析这一个隐含的条件就要说明policy marker不否定这个条件。 我的问题是，E选项有涉及，但是觉得选项中的not as strongly as they oppose new taxes 这个表达中，policy maker 还是会反对设排放上限的，为什么就可以推断出是best way？ 我选的D选项，OG 的解释是 Since fixing upper emissions limits would be no more economically efficient than the proportional taxation scheme, the policymakers’ support for economic efficiency would not make the former approach any more politically feasible than the latter. 现在觉得这个分析很正确，因为题干开头就是 The most economically efficient way to reduce emissions of air pollutants is... 如果policy maker 考虑这个因素就不会拒绝上税的方案。
谢谢大家为我解惑，我的迷惑在E选项上。
| 
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2015-9-26 19:30:50
收藏
收藏
楼主
