GWD30-15求解答

朱文婷 · 发表于 2011-9-14 08:55:11

Q15:
Kernland imposes a high tariff on the export of unprocessed cashew nuts in order to ensure that the nuts are sold to domestic processing plants.If the tariff were lifted and unprocessed cashews were sold at world market prices, more farmers could profit by growing cashews.However, since all the processing plants are in urban areas, removing the tariff would seriously hamper the government’s effort to reduce urban unemployment over the next five years.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

Some of the by-products of processing cashews are used for manufacturing paints and plastics.
Other countries in which cashews are processed subsidize their processing plants.
More people in Kernland are engaged in farming cashews than in processing them.
Buying unprocessed cashews at lower than world market prices enables cashew processors in Kernland to sell processed nuts at competitive prices.
A lack of profitable crops is driving an increasing number of small farmers in Kernland off their land and into the cities.我的理解：本题是因果结构,果是免除关税不利于降低城镇的失业率，要削弱该ARGUMENT就要直接驳斥文章的附加前提或者直接说明结论不成立。E好像说的是导致失业率难以降低的另外一个原因。PS，题目我有点不懂，正常来讲，提高出口关税应该是对农民不利，对加工产有利吧，题目的逻辑我也搞不太清。我是刚注册CD的菜鸟，望大侠们指教，感激涕零啊。

houhaibo528 · 发表于 2011-9-14 12:55:21

我举得这道题，你可能理解错了一个关键词
If the tariff were lifted and unprocessed cashews were sold at world market prices
lift是解除的意思，不是升高的意思。
整个题目的逻辑是这样的:
high tarifff--> nuts sold in domestic market
tariff lifted-->nuts can go to world market-->farmers benefit from it (coz demand rises)-->domestic urban processing plants
hurt ( competition with foreign counterpart)-->urban unemployment get worse--> hamper government's effort
说实话，我觉得这个weaken也不是很好，但是根据择优法，也就只能这样了。

Q15:
Kernland imposes a high tariff on the export of unprocessed cashew nuts in order to ensure that the nuts are sold to domestic processing plants.If the tariff were lifted and unprocessed cashews were sold at world market prices, more farmers could profit by growing cashews.However, since all the processing plants are in urban areas, removing the tariff would seriously hamper the government’s effort to reduce urban unemployment over the next five years.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

Some of the by-products of processing cashews are used for manufacturing paints and plastics.

Other countries in which cashews are processed subsidize their processing plants.

More people in Kernland are engaged in farming cashews than in processing them.

Buying unprocessed cashews at lower than world market prices enables cashew processors in Kernland to sell processed nuts at competitive prices.

A lack of profitable crops is driving an increasing number of small farmers in Kernland off their land and into the cities.我的理解：本题是因果结构,果是免除关税不利于降低城镇的失业率，要削弱该ARGUMENT就要直接驳斥文章的附加前提或者直接说明结论不成立。E好像说的是导致失业率难以降低的另外一个原因。PS，题目我有点不懂，正常来讲，提高出口关税应该是对农民不利，对加工产有利吧，题目的逻辑我也搞不太清。我是刚注册CD的菜鸟，望大侠们指教，感激涕零啊。

-- by 会员朱文婷 (2011/9/14 8:55:11)

朱文婷 · 发表于 2011-9-14 14:34:45

嗯，听你这么一讲，思路清楚多了，谢谢那

本贴相关题目 GMATPrep-2008E1-CR-111 | TN-13-CR-2 (TMOK)

相关帖子

更多相关帖子

GWD30-15求解答

所属分类: GMAT考试

正在浏览此版块的会员 ()