In two months, the legal minimum wage in the country of Kirlandia will increase from five Kirlandic dollars(KD5.00) Per hour to KD5.50 per hour. Opponents of this increase have argued that the resulting rise in wages will drive the inflation rate up. In fact its impact on wages will probably be negligible, since only a very small proportion of all Kirfandic workers are currently receiving less than KD5.50 per hour.
读题;only small proportion workers are receiving less than 5.5
so raising the minimum wage has a little impact on inflation,
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?
A.Most people in Kirlandia who are currently earning the minimum wage havebeen employed at their current jobs for less than a year.
B.Some firms in Kirlandia have paid workers considerably less than KD5.00per hour, in violation of Kirlandic employment regulations.
C.Many businesses hire trainees练习生at or near the minimum wage but mustreward trained workers by keeping their paylevels above the pay levelof trainees
D.The greatest growth in Kirlandia’s economy in recent years has been in those sectors where workers earn wages that tend to be much higherthan the minimum wage.
E.The current minimum wage is insufficient for a worker holding only one job to earn enough to support a family,even when working full time at that job.
这道题的逻辑链非常清楚，因为很少工人的工资低于5.50，所以提升工资最低线不会对通胀造成什么影响，
因为是削弱，我就先想到的是反对前提，即有很多人在工资最低限上，甚至低于最低线，看到E长的很像说因为工人打了好几份工所以工资才高，所以其实工资很低，就错选了E，后来看答案说C，但是我觉得C好想并没有削弱前提啊？它只是指出因为有公司定的标准是工人的工资要高过最低线多少多少，所以升最低线会导致涨工资，对不对，这样子的话不算是他因削弱吗？不是应该围绕很少人在最低线上来反驳吗？？迷惑求解
| 
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2011-5-10 15:18:20
收藏
收藏
