求助！！PREP08 CR #111

crazysuo

111.       

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?

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

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

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

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

E. A lack of profitable crops is driving an increasing number of small farmers in Kernland off their land and into the cities.

Helr笔记中是这样解释的：

E. Correct. 没有足够的利润会让很多原本种腰果的农民放弃种植而到城里找工作。该选项涉及“因”的一个能导致结论可信度变化的特点。当农民出口未处理的腰果得到的利润高了，就不会再有农民向城市跑了，甚至还有城市人来种腰果，所以这个性质可能会导致城市里的竞争压力变小，失业率从而变低。显然属于CQ2：干扰因素问题。

为什么农民到城市中去了，反而不会增加城市的失业人数呢？

yanhang

原来的假设：增加关税，cashew只供应国内，而让城市里的processing plants增加，从而政府减少失业率。
（此处最难理解，须读懂文章的意思）
      －－－这里为什么是增加关税，看文章 removing the tariff would hamper the government's efforts to reduce urban unemployment
                 两个否定词， 可改为    增加 the tariff would 增加 the government's efforts to reduce urban unemployment

问题：削弱上面。－－－－同理：为什么上面的假设不成立？

选e   因为：增加关税 让 种cashew的农民减少收入， 从而放弃种地 进入城市， 最终 会增加失业率

你这一天天

yanhang 发表于 2014-1-1 05:45
原来的假设：增加关税，cashew只供应国内，而让城市里的processing plants增加，从而政府减少 ...

同意！               

Bensontuo

1. Spot the question type - If " one of the following Option " must be true, then the " original argument must be false or could be true but not must be true.

2. If " original argument must be true ", then " one of the following options " must be false.

P1: K put high tariff on the export of unprocessed cashew nuts to ensure that nuts are sold to domestic process plants.

High tariff on the export of unprocessed cashew ---> Nuts sold to domestic

Nut does not sold to domestic ---> No high tariff on the export of unprocessed cashew

P2: If the tariff were lifted ( removed ) and If unprocessed cashews sold at world market place, more farmers could profit by growing cashews.

No High tariff on the export of unprocessed cashew + Nut does not sold to domestic ---> Farmer could be profit by growing cashews.

P1 + p2

Nut does not sold to demotic ---> No high tariff + Nut sold to world market ---> Farmer could be profit


C: 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 5 years

Processing plants ---> Urban Areas ---> removing tariff ---> Serious hamper the gov's efforts to reduce the urban unemployment.

Processing plants are all in urban areas ---> Removing tariff ---> farmer profit ---> Hamper the efforts

The core of the argument " Removing tariffs ---> Cash sold at world market ---> farmer profit ---> hamper the efforts of gov on reducing the unemployments, since no cashew to process at processing plants.

so, if there is one answer showing any mistaken negate within any part of the conditional logic of original argument,  then the whole logic chain must be destroyed. if it could be destroyed, then it would be weaken answer we are looking for.

A. there is no any cashews left for processing at the processed plants, since they are sold to world market, if they are all sold to world market instead of domestic market, how could we have any " some of the by-products of processing cashew exist.

B. So ?out of scope, we are talking about what would be happened in K, not the other countries.


C. it could only prove that more farmer could be benefited,  but does not mean the efforts from the gov would be no use.

D. again, its not relevant to the core argument.

E no profitable crops ---> Farmer no profit ---> move into city.

( Here is the most important point !!!!   Original argument said, removing tariffs will fail the efforts; however, the reason why the efforts are failed is not because tariffs being removed, but might be because farmers who can't make enough money come to the city.



* Its not about whether the conclusion of the argument could be overturned or not, it's about " the process of reasoning structure ".  ( Removing tariffs ---> Hamper government's effort )  as the original argument, you don't want to refute the conclusion by selecting the answer suggesting that " efforts won't be hampered; instead, you want to look for the one that suggesting why removing tariffs is not sufficient enough to guarantee the gov's efforts being hampered.

Let us double check the contrapositive of P2 => Farmer makes no profit ----> No remove the tariffs or keep selling to the domestic market

And option E => Farmer makes no profit ---> Farmer moving into the city.

So, " No remove the tariffs or keeping selling to the domestic market ---> Farmer moving into the city.

and if farmer moving into the city, then the increased base of the population might be the reason why gov's efforts are hampered, but not the other factor of processing plants, locating in urban areas requires to downsize the operational works, since there are no enough cashew to process to make profit which would result in gov's effort of reducing unemployment rate.

jade77

Vivian1091 发表于 2013-8-4 10:16
结论：remove the tariff would not increase the unemployment rate in urban取消关税不会增加城市失业率
...

不是问的削弱结论吗

Charline_chang

小二郎的兄弟 发表于 2016-7-8 18:03
这道题也是纠结了几分钟。。为积攒人品给后人看吧~

这个题目的 逻辑是：K现在执行的是high tariff来保证n ...

本题的结论是：取消关税会增加城市的失业率，问削弱。
所以不应该是 取消关税，对城市的失业率不会增加？
E答案 如果不取消关税，农民进入城市，城市的失业率上升了，也就是说，如果取消了关税，农民不进入城市，城市的失业率不会增加，所以削弱了结论。

带阿咪阿毛读phd

小二郎的兄弟 发表于 2016-7-8 18:03
这道题也是纠结了几分钟。。为积攒人品给后人看吧~

这个题目的 逻辑是：K现在执行的是high tariff来保证n ...

卧槽看了好几遍终于看懂了 感谢

追梦的Yvonne

题意的argument：取消税收->农民为了把高利润把坚果给外国人->本国处理厂,基本都设在城市,没活儿了->城市居民失业;

E的观点：由于缺乏有利润的粮食种植从而导致了K的小农民们放弃种地去城市找工作的数量增加了。 即更多人在城市里，失业率不一定会低

双双儿

argument是：remove tariff → 不能reduce unemployment，我们要削弱此argument。

argument的逆否命题是：reduce unemployment→保留tariff（要想reduce unemployment，就要保留tariff）

E是削弱了此逆否命题：
农民没钱可挣（就是保留了tariff，使得价格低于世界价格）使得农民转移到城市（进而失业率增加），即保留tariff→不能reduce unemployment

晒个月亮吧

这里lift是取消“remove”的意思

取消关税=》城市失业率上升，所以就需要提高关税。求削弱
E.提高关税之后，农民种腰果的利益会减少，就会到城里去找工作，这会加重城市就业的负担，不利于就业

朱小森

D、ior 发表于 2016-8-31 12:32
这道题也是纠结了几分钟。。为积攒人品给后人看吧~

这个题目的 逻辑是：K现在执行的是high tariff来保证 ...

靠谱的