Clearly, if commuters can get to work more cheaply, they will have more money left over to spend in other sectors of the economy, and the city’s finances on the whole will not be negatively affected by higher gasoline prices. 这里的逻辑应该是: public fare 减少 > 导致 other sectors 收入上升 finance on the whole = pulic fare + other sectors 所以 pulic fare的收入者 是 damage的一方,其他所有的other sectors看做一个整体是收益的一方 选C最直接 其他的几个选项者也有部分的damage,但都不是fare减少最直接的受害者 -- by 会员 aomeisoft7 (2010/9/23 12:30:18)
个人有点不同看法,觉得应该是问如下的那个damage最可能发生。 其他选项都不一定发生,但是c选项肯定会发生,因为3个月的免费乘车,肯定budget会受影响 但是其他的情况,没有条件表明会一定发生。 A local chain of service stations, which will see fewer customers during the daily commute. 这个选项我觉得因为题干没有保证这个local service station的customers一定会减少。存在这样的可能,减少的人几乎都没有在这个location附近。 Members of the bus drivers’ union, who will be forced to add more routes and work longer hours. 题干没有说现在的bus情况是怎么样,如果本身就不是很紧张的话,为什么要加班次和时间? The city council’s budget, which will be unbalanced after receiving no revenue from transit fares for three months. 这个情况在实施这个plan之后肯定会发生 Commuters who already use public transportation daily and who will face crowded conditions and travel delays. 如果现在的状况本身就是bus不挤呢?那即便乘车人多了,也不会crowded Commuters who do not live near public transportation routes and will not be able to take advantage of the suspended fares. 谁说这些commuters必须住在车站附近了? |