ChaseDream
搜索
12下一页
返回列表 发新帖
查看: 7030|回复: 10
打印 上一主题 下一主题

[求助]GWD24-12

[复制链接]
楼主
发表于 2005-7-2 16:16:00 | 只看该作者

[求助]GWD24-12

Is it possible to decrease inflation without causing a recession and its concomitant increase in unemployment? The orthodox answer is “no”. Whether they support the “inertia” theory of inflation(that today’s inflation rate is caused by yesterday’s inflation, the state of the economic cycle, and external influences such as import prices) or the “rational expectations” theory (that inflation is caused by workers’ and employers’ expectations, coupled with a lack of credible monetary and fiscal policies), most economists agree that tight monetary and fiscal policies, which cause recessions, are necessary to decelerate inflation. They point out that in the 1980’s, many European countries and the United States conquered high (by these countries’ standards) inflation, but only by applying tight monetary and fiscal policies that sharply increased unemployment. Nevertheless, some governments’ policymakers insist that direct controls on wages and process, without tight monetary and fiscal policies, can succeed in decreasing inflation. Unfortunately, because this approach fails to deal with the underlying causes of inflation, wage and price controls eventually collapse, the hitherto-repressed inflation resurfaces, and in the meantime, though the policy-makers succeed in avoiding a recession, a frozen structure of relative prices imposes distortions that do damage to the economy’s prospects for long-term growth.



24-12 The primary purpose of the passage is to>>


A) apply two conventional theories.>>


B) examine a generally accepted position.>>


C) support a controversial policy.>>


D) explain the underlying causes of a phenomenon.>>


E) propose an innovative solution.


答案B,我选C


Is it possible to decrease inflation without causing a recession and its concomitant increase in unemployment?
是否可以既削减通货膨胀,又不带来经济衰退及相应的高失业呢?


The orthodox answer is “no”.
传统观点认为不可能。


Whether they support the “inertia” theory of inflation(that today’s inflation rate is caused by yesterday’s inflation, the state of the economic cycle, and external influences such as import prices) or the “rational expectations” theory (that inflation is caused by workers’ and employers’ expectations, coupled with a lack of credible monetary and fiscal policies), most economists agree that tight monetary and fiscal policies, which cause recessions, are necessary to decelerate inflation.
无论是惯性理论,还是理性预期理论,大部分经济学家都主张以从紧的货币和财政政策来减缓通货膨胀。


They point out that in the 1980’s, many European countries and the United States conquered high (by these countries’ standards) inflation, but only by applying tight monetary and fiscal policies that sharply increased unemployment.
他们指出,许多欧洲国家和美国克服了(以这些国家的标准衡量的)高通货膨胀,而确是采用了导致高失业的从紧的货币和财政政策。


Nevertheless, some governments’ policymakers insist that direct controls on wages and process, without tight monetary and fiscal policies, can succeed in decreasing inflation.
然而,一些政府政策制定者坚称,直接控制工资和过程(是否应为price?),不需从紧的货币和财政政策,也可以抑制通胀。


Unfortunately, because this approach fails to deal with the underlying causes of inflation, wage and price controls eventually collapse, the hitherto-repressed inflation resurfaces, and in the meantime, though the policy-makers succeed in avoiding a recession, a frozen structure of relative prices imposes distortions that do damage to the economy’s prospects for long-term growth.
不幸地是,因为这种方法未能解决通胀的潜在原因,控制最终失效,通胀再次高启,同时尽管避免了衰退,相对价格的固定构架伤害了经济的长期前景。


我觉得B的问题在于EXAMINE, generally accepted theory; 然而,一些政府政策制定者坚称,直接控制工资和过程(是否应为price?),不需从紧的货币和财政政策,也可以抑制通胀。说明理论是有反对者的,而作者通过后面的论述,否定了这些反对的意见,从而支持了一个有争议的政策


争议体现在:经济学家和政策的制定者对该政策的看法不一致


请NN指正


[此贴子已经被作者于2005-7-2 16:16:12编辑过]
沙发
发表于 2005-7-2 17:32:00 | 只看该作者

我选B。B中的用词没有不妥啊。而且全文也是一种分析、评论的基调。文章中不是在表达作者对这一有争议理论的支持或反对。

板凳
 楼主| 发表于 2005-7-2 17:36:00 | 只看该作者
偶再仔细想想!
地板
发表于 2005-8-23 18:19:00 | 只看该作者

先顶一下...


I choose C too, now is looking closely at both B and C

5#
发表于 2005-8-25 17:03:00 | 只看该作者

I believe it is B alright!


I picked C because I was not getting the main idea of the passage, 被迷惑選項困住了

6#
发表于 2007-2-7 13:56:00 | 只看该作者

我支持B,因为:

most economists agree that tight monetary and fiscal policies, which cause recessions, are necessary to decelerate inflation.
    Nevertheless, some governments’ policymakers insist that direct controls on wages and process, without tight monetary and fiscal policies, can succeed in decreasing inflation.

B. examine a generally accepted position

C. support a controversial policy (有争议的)

B,C 比较而言,examine 考核,通过文章理解包含了支持(support) most economists的理论。

看文章结构,完全是一篇议论文。先说论断 (用No来发表自己立场),

再进行论证,用了一个正论据,又用了一个反论,并在最后加强否定了相反的理论。

如果我们自己来写一篇如此命题(Is It Possible To Decrease inflation Without Causing A Recession And its Consonmitant Increase?)的作文。

等我们按照作者的内容写完之后,我们会认为我们的文章中心思想只是

support a controversial policy么?  所以,我选B, Examine a ...position

7#
发表于 2007-2-7 14:01:00 | 只看该作者

正所谓B比C 更“虚”。

想想我们Gmat的essay, ETS都是要求我们发表自己的立场,而不是支持,或者反对某一个观点。

8#
发表于 2007-3-12 14:30:00 | 只看该作者

我同意选B,作者用对少数人观点的分析,检验出原来人们一直支持的观点的正确性。

总感觉c项中的controversial有待商榷

9#
发表于 2007-4-28 13:50:00 | 只看该作者

i chose D, what's wrong with this choice?

I think the author wants to explain the phenomenon that decreased inflation will inevitably cause higher unemployment and recesssion.  

10#
发表于 2007-4-28 14:14:00 | 只看该作者

结论说明型:

一上来亮观点,降低通胀且无衰退且低失业不可能.

大部分经济学家认为:紧缩的货币和财政政策(会导致衰退)对降通胀有必要

举例说明,无论是否不采取紧缩货币政策都会导致不良后果

B) examine a generally accepted position.

文章的中心是讲一上来说明的那个论点,正确

C) support a controversial policy.

policy是指货币政策,是调节通货膨胀的手段,细节,错.且作者没有明确态度支持

D) explain the underlying causes of a phenomenon.

文章一开始没有说现象,说的是理论所以也不对.

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, 2025-6-9 16:53
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号

ChaseDream 论坛

© 2003-2025 ChaseDream.com. All Rights Reserved.

返回顶部