- UID
- 491507
- 在线时间
- 小时
- 注册时间
- 2009-11-22
- 最后登录
- 1970-1-1
- 主题
- 帖子
- 性别
- 保密
|
GWD 31-- 18--Q28:
Five years ago, as part of a plan to encourage citizens of Levaska to increase the amount of money they put into savings, Levaska’s government introduced special savings accounts in which up to $3,000 a year can be saved with no tax due on the interest unless money is withdrawn before the account holder reaches the age of sixty-five.Millions of dollars have accumulated in the special accounts, so the government’s plan is obviously working.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?
- A substantial number of Levaskans have withdrawn at least some of the money they had invested in the special accounts.
- Workers in Levaska who already save money in long-term tax-free accounts that are offered through their workplace cannot take advantage of the special savings accounts introduced by the government.
- The rate at which interest earned on money deposited in regular savings accounts is taxed depends on the income bracket of the account holder.
- Many Levaskans who already had long-term savings have steadily been transferring those savings into the special accounts.
- Many of the economists who now claim that the government’s plan has been successful criticized it when it was introduced.
这道为什么选D呢 @@
gwd 31-18-Q20:
Environmental organizations want to preserve the land surrounding the Wilgrinn Wilderness Area from residential development.They plan to do this by purchasing that land from the farmers who own it.That plan is ill-conceived:if the farmers did sell their land, they would sell it to the highest bidder, and developers would outbid any other bidders.On the other hand, these farmers will never actually sell any of the land, provided that farming it remains viable.But farming will not remain viable if the farms are left unmodernized, and most of the farmers lack the financial resources modernization requires.And that is exactly why a more sensible preservation strategy would be to assist the farmers to modernize their farms to the extent needed to maintain viability.
In the argument as a whole, the two boldface proportions play which of the following roles?
- The first presents a goal that the argument rejects as ill-conceived; the second is evidence that is presented as grounds for that rejection.
- The first presents a goal that the argument concludes cannot be attained; the second is a reason offered in support of that conclusion.
- The first presents a goal that the argument concludes can be attained; the second is a judgment disputing that conclusion.
- The first presents a goal, strategies for achieving which are being evaluated in the argument; the second is a judgment providing a basis for the argument’s advocacy of a particular strategy.
- The first presents a goal that the argument endorses; the second presents a situation that the argument contends must be changed if that goal is to be met in the foreseeable future.
这道为什么也选D 呢
请大侠们帮忙解决，谢谢！！！
gwd 31-18-Q20:
Environmental organizations want to preserve the land surrounding the Wilgrinn Wilderness Area from residential development.They plan to do this by purchasing that land from the farmers who own it.That plan is ill-conceived:if the farmers did sell their land, they would sell it to the highest bidder, and developers would outbid any other bidders.On the other hand, these farmers will never actually sell any of the land, provided that farming it remains viable.But farming will not remain viable if the farms are left unmodernized, and most of the farmers lack the financial resources modernization requires.And that is exactly why a more sensible preservation strategy would be to assist the farmers to modernize their farms to the extent needed to maintain viability.
In the argument as a whole, the two boldface proportions play which of the following roles?
- The first presents a goal that the argument rejects as ill-conceived; the second is evidence that is presented as grounds for that rejection.
- The first presents a goal that the argument concludes cannot be attained; the second is a reason offered in support of that conclusion.
- The first presents a goal that the argument concludes can be attained; the second is a judgment disputing that conclusion.
- The first presents a goal, strategies for achieving which are being evaluated in the argument; the second is a judgment providing a basis for the argument’s advocacy of a particular strategy.
- The first presents a goal that the argument endorses; the second presents a situation that the argument contends must be changed if that goal is to be met in the foreseeable future.
这道为什么也选D 呢
请大侠们帮忙解决，谢谢！！！
|
|
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2010-5-22 13:41:58
收藏
收藏
楼主
