ChaseDream
搜索
返回列表 发新帖
查看: 1536|回复: 1
打印 上一主题 下一主题

求助-这道逻辑题不理解

[复制链接]
跳转到指定楼层
楼主
发表于 2013-9-15 06:14:58 | 只看该作者 回帖奖励 |倒序浏览 |阅读模式
From 1998 to 2008, the amount of oil exported from the nation of Dettlandia increased by nearly 20% as the world’s demand soared. Yet over the same period, Dettlandia lost over 8,000 jobs in oil drilling and refinement, representing a 25% increase in the nation’s unemployment rate.

Which of the following, if true, would best explain the discrepancy outlined above?

A- Because of a slumping local economy, Dettlandia also lost 5,000 service jobs and 7,500 manufacturing jobs.
B-Several other countries in the region reported similar percentages of jobs lost in the oil industry over the same period.
C- Because of Dettlandia’s overvalued currency, most of the nation’s crude oil is now being refined after it has been exported.
D- Technological advancements in oil drilling techniques have allowed for a greater percentage of the world’s oil to be obtained from underneath the ocean floor.
E-Many former oil employees have found more lucrative work in the Dettlandia’s burgeoning precious metals mining industry.

正确答案是--C....

错选了D。。我觉得C只解释了refinement的jobs会减少,没有解释drilling jobs 为什么也会减少呢??




收藏收藏 收藏收藏
沙发
发表于 2013-9-15 10:35:52 | 只看该作者
个人意见~
over the same time--> 类比推理(类比了oil export & decline in jobs)
CQ1: 相似性问题;CQ2:反案例问题
问explain discrepancy,就是问weaken这个应该同向变化的类比推理:
答案应该涉及到两个案例的比较。--> C or D
但是D比较的是oil,没有涉及到oil export,而C同时涉及了oil export和因此导致的job问题,补足两个之间的GAP.
lz说的C只减少了refinement job没有减少driling job,我的理解是,减少了jobs in refinement,那么jobs in drillling and refinement自然就减少了,前者是后者的子集啦~

open to discuss~
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, 2024-11-10 02:50
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