求大牛解答一道GWD逻辑题~~~~~~~~~~~

jy043

Editorial: In Ledland, unemployed adults receive government assistance.  To reduce unemployment, the government proposes to supplement the income of those who accept jobs that pay less than government assistance, thus enabling employers to hire workers cheaply.  However, the supplement will not raise any worker’s income above what government assistance would provide if he or she were not gainfully employed.  Therefore, unemployed people will have no financial incentive to accept jobs that would entitle them to the supplement.
Which of the following, if true about Ledland, most seriously weakens the argument of the editorial?  c
A.    The government collects no taxes on assistance it provides to unemployed individuals and their families.
B.    Neighboring countries with laws that mandate the minimum wage an employer must pay an employee have higher unemployment rates than Ledland currently has.
C.    eople who are employed and look for a new job tend to get higher-paying jobs than job seekers who are unemployed.
D.    The yearly amount unemployed people receive from government assistance is less than the yearly income that the government defines as the poverty level.
E.    eople sometimes accept jobs that pay relatively little simply because they enjoy the work.

这个题我选的D，而答案是C。

我个人的逻辑是，因为实际收到的补助比这个编辑从官方了解的更低，因此人们还是愿意去工作的。而C答案我怎么想也想不通和题里面的conclusion有什么关系。

jy043

哦哦~懂了，谢谢！

HarrisZheng

说个容易理解的事实吧

公司招人的时候 有工作经验的应聘者工资高 没工作经验的应聘者工资低 甚至还不要你

所以 工资低不要紧 先干着 有机会换好的  一直不干活 有机会来了也找不到好的

本题说的就是这么一回事

ruudarly

先纠正一点哈，editorial是社论的意思，而不是指编辑。。。
我没怎么看懂你的思路，个人认为D里面讲到了poverty level是原文里没有的信息，所以无关
至于为什么选C,原文的逻辑是这样的，本来如果大家在家歇着政府会给你补助，而现在政府想鼓励公司雇佣我们这帮不干活的，所以跟公司说你们工资开的再低都没关系，反正不够的部分我们政府给你补了，当然政府给补的钱不会多于你不干活拿的补助。这时候我们这帮不干活的当然不乐意了，我干活不干活拿的钱一样多，凭什么我还要干活啊？
然后C就来告诉你，不要着急，就算你第一份工资拿的低，你再找第二份工资就高的多了，远远比人家雇佣你不干活的高得多。所以大家还是赶紧开始找工作吧。
明白没？