ChaseDream
搜索
返回列表 发新帖
00:00:00

Bank depositors in the United States are all financially protected against bank failure because the government insures all individuals' bank deposits.An economist argues that this insurance is partly responsible for the high rate of bank failures, since it removes from depositors any financial incentive to find out whether the bank that holds their money is secure against failure.If depositors were more selective.then banks would need to be secure in order to compete for depositors' money.

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

正确答案: B

更多相关帖子

524

帖子

15

好友

4712

积分

ChaseDream

注册时间
2003-03-17
精华
8
解析
查看: 12274|回复: 3
打印 上一主题 下一主题

请教大全-14-8

[复制链接]
楼主
发表于 2004-5-11 11:37:00 | 只看该作者

请教大全-14-8


Bank depositors in the United States are all financially protected against bank failure because the government insures all individuals’ bank deposits. An economist argues that this insurance is partly responsible for the high rate of bank failures, since it removes from depositors any financial incentive to find out whether the bank that holds their money is secure against failure. If depositors were more selective, then banks would need to be secure in order to compete for depositors’ money.






8.Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the economist’s argument?



(A) Before the government started to insure depositors against bank failure, there was a lower rate of bank failure than there is now.



(B) When the government did not insure deposits, frequent bank failures occurred as a result of depositors’ fears of losing money in bank failures.



(C) Surveys show that a significant proportion of depositors are aware that their deposits are insured by the government.



(D) There is an upper limit on the amount of an individual’s deposit that the government will insure, but very few individuals’ deposits exceed this limit.


(E) The security of a bank against failure depends on the percentage of its assets that are loaned out and also on how much risk its loans involve.


答案选B,可我觉得E也对。因为题意为bank failure -->government insurance. B从逆否命题的角度weaken了原命题,即使没有政府保障,银行仍然破产。E说明了银行破产的原因并不在于政府的保险,而在于借出财产比例和风险。两者都可以weaken,应该如何取舍呢?

沙发
发表于 2004-5-11 12:43:00 | 只看该作者

(A) Before the government started to insure depositors against bank failure, there was a lower rate of bank failure than there is now.



A bolster the argument.

(B) When the government did not insure deposits, frequent bank failures occurred as a result of depositors’ fears of losing money in bank failures.



(C) Surveys show that a significant proportion of depositors are aware that their deposits are insured by the government.



(D) There is an upper limit on the amount of an individual’s deposit that the government will insure, but very few individuals’ deposits exceed this limit.


(E) The security of a bank against failure depends on the percentage of its assets that are loaned out and also on how much risk its loans involve


choice E only clear the way for bank to fight against failure, it is not properly to infer from choice E that the failure stems from the abovementioned reasons.

板凳
发表于 2004-11-5 20:58:00 | 只看该作者

(E) The security of a bank against failure (only) depends on the percentage of its assets that are loaned out and also on how much risk its loans involve.

请问:如果有(only)这个词,是不是就是weaken了?

或者 The security of   a bank against failure  和  The security of bank  failure 放在E中,是不是一样的。

谢谢!

地板
发表于 2004-11-5 21:37:00 | 只看该作者
您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 立即注册

Mark一下! 看一下! 顶楼主! 感谢分享! 快速回复:

手机版|ChaseDream|GMT+8, 2024-9-23 13:30
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号

ChaseDream 论坛

© 2003-2023 ChaseDream.com. All Rights Reserved.

返回顶部