GWD12-11 看了好多帖子还是不懂

Q11:

In general, jobs are harder to get in times of economic recession because many businesses cut back operations.  However, any future recessions in Vargonia will probably not reduce the availability of teaching jobs at government-funded schools.  This is because Vargonia has just introduced a legal requirement that education in government-funded schools be available, free of charge, to all Vargonian children regardless of the state of the economy, and that current student-teacher ratios not be exceeded.

Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?

1. The current student-teacher ratio at Vargonia’s government-funded schools is higher than it was during the most recent period of economic recession.
   
2. During recent periods when the Vargonian economy has been strong, almost 25 percent of Vargonian children have attended privately funded schools, many of which charge substantial fees.
   
3. Nearly 20 percent more teachers are currently employed in Vargonia’s government-funded schools than had been employed in those schools in the period before the last economic recession.
   
4. Teachers in Vargonia’s government-funded schools are well paid relative to teachers in most privately funded schools in Vargonia, many of which rely heavily on part-time teachers.
   
   
   
5. During the last economic recession in Vargonia, the government permanently closed a number of the schools that it had funded.

   答案是B

文中的结论是经济的萧条都不会引起公费学校的教师就业，原因是政府规定不论经济好与不好，都为学生提供上学费用

问哪个支持

b说经济好的时候很多去私立，跟本题有什么关系么？

题干：一般说来，在经济不景气的时候找工作比较难，因为这时候很多公司都在削减运作成本。但是在V地，即使以后有经济不景气的时候，公办学校中的教师职位不会受到减少。因为V地刚刚开始执行一个法规规定无论在什么样的经济情况下，V地的孩子在公办学校的免费教育得到必须保证，而且学生和老师之间的比例不能超出现有的比例。

（学生和老师的比例等于学生人数是分子，老师人数比例是分母。比例越大说明学生变多了或者老师变少了-----此注解专门加给象我一样对数字没概念的难兄难弟难姐难妹们，有数字概念的请略过这几行，并请不要笑话我们）

Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?（找一个出来支持这个公立学校里面的老师职位不会减少，或者说去公立学校应征老师比找其它工作容易）

1. The current student-teacher ratio at Vargonia’s government-funded schools is higher than it was during the most recent period of economic recession. 现在的比例超出了任何经济不景气时候的比例。这个选项有两个可挑剔处：第一，结论是说现在的老师职位不会减少。所以即使现在的老师很少，但只要以后不会更少，那这个结论就没有错。但是这个选项并没有让我们知道以后是可能还是不可能减少老师的人数。第二，以前的经济有多不景气不等于以后的景气就会有同样的不景气程度。如果超过了以前的不景气程度，这个选项并没有让我们相信现在的老师就会丢饭碗。


2. During recent periods when the Vargonian economy has been strong, almost 25 percent of Vargonian children have attended privately funded schools, many of which charge substantial fees. 那么如果经济不景气，这些孩子是不是就不可能继续在私立学校读书而会转到公立学校来呢？如果那样的话学生人数就会增加。而法规规定学生和老师的比例不能超过现在的比例，那么学生如果增加的话，老师必然也只能增加=有更多的老师的职位。如果私立学校的学生即使退学也不去公立学校的话，那么分子不增加，分母也不增加=题干中的不会减少现有的老师数量。正确。


3. Nearly 20 percent more teachers are currently employed in Vargonia’s government-funded schools than had been employed in those schools in the period before the last economic recession.现在的老师数量超过上一次不景气前的老师数量。关于和上一次不景气的比较不成立，理由见A。


4. Teachers in Vargonia’s government-funded schools are well paid relative to teachers in most privately funded schools in Vargonia, many of which rely heavily on part-time teachers.这个选项的问题是教师的收入和公立学校的老师职位是没有必然联系的，只能推出说有可能私立学校的老师想跳槽到公立学校。但是不是想去就能去在题干和选项中找不到支持。因为如果学生不增加的话，公立学校即使遵守法规也没有必要增加老师。所以问题的关键在于要先有学生人数会增加或者不减少的前提，才会有增加或者不减少老师职位的结论。


5. During the last economic recession in Vargonia, the government permanently closed a number of the schools that it had funded和上一次不景气的比较不成立，理由见A。

上面两位给我的答案是矛盾的哦，不过还是写谢拉

如果b选项的意思就是想说经济好的时候去私立，还是不能很strengthen文中的观点阿

我怎么看不出我和另一位同学有互相矛盾的地方呢。

我再来试着回答一下，题干的推题过程如下：

尽管经济不景气时很多公司会裁员，但公立学校不会。其理由是当地的政府有规定，不管经济形势如何，必须保证不超过现在的学生对教师的比例。
其不超过现在比例的含义在于，在学生增加的情况下，老师也必须增加；学生不增加的情况下，现有的老师数量必须保持。

B选项的正确性在于：提供了信息学生数量是有可能增加的----因为现在有些学生没有就读于公立学校，而就读于付较高学费的私立学校。（这样象tigerzheng说的那样，当经济不景气时这些学生可能付不起私立学校的学费而会转到公立学校。）。那么这些学生如果转到了公立学校，公立学校的老师人数就必须增加。而如果他们不来公立学校，现有的公立学校教师数量不会减少。 这和题干是一致的。

got it !!!

Thanks so much.