求大神解GWD-TN-16第二题疑惑

Ryan_V

这题是这样的：
In two months, the legal minimum wage in the country of Kirlandia will increase from five Kirlandic dollars(KD5.00) Per hour to KD5.50 per hour. Opponents of this increase have argued that the resulting rise in wages will drive the inflation rate up. In fact its impact on wages will probably be negligible, since only a very small proportion of all Kirfandic workers are currently receiving less than KD5.50 per hour.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?
A.        Most people in Kirlandia who are currently earning the minimum wage have been employed at their current jobs for less than a year.
B.        Some firms in Kirlandia have paid workers considerably less than KD5.00 per hour, in violation of Kirlandic employment regulations.
C.        Many businesses hire trainees at or near the minimum wage but must reward trained workers by keeping their pay levels above the pay level of trainees.
D.        The greatest growth in Kirlandia’s economy in recent years has been in those sectors where workers earn wages that tend to be much higher than the minimum wage.
E.        The current minimum wage is insufficient for a worker holding only one job to earn enough to support a family, even when working full time at that job.

正确答案是选C， 我看了大家的解答，总之思路就是：trainee的工资如果从最低的5.0涨到了最低的5.5，那么workers的工资就都会高于5.5，因此产生的impact不会negligible.
但是    我认为 文中条件说：  
因为 only a very small proportion of all Kirfandic workers are currently receiving less than KD5.50 per hour，  所以产生的影响才是微小的。
这个C答案无论怎么解释，都没有解释到" a small propotion" 这个点子上啊，不管你trainee怎么去涨工资，然后导致其他workers都必须高于5.5，前提是最低工资小于5.5的只是很小的一部分人。C答案并没有构成对原文结论的削弱啊。当然其他答案 我也觉得都没构成削弱。。 好纠结的一道题。。。 求大神们指点迷津！！

mnimi

你分析中前一半关于影响小那部分没问题。
重点在后面，trainees工资at or near the minimum wage ，那么新工资法后就是>= KD5.5 那large proportion高于5.5的trained worker工资就可能更高，就可能inflation了。比如，本来 trained worker工资KD5.6，现在trainees工资涨到KD5.6了， 那trained worker可能就涨到KD5.8>KD5.6 那么这种比例一高，就影响通货膨胀了。

另外用排除法也是选C

mandy1991

In two months, the legal minimum wage in the country of Kirlandia will increase from five Kirlandic dollars(KD5.00) Per hour to KD5.50 per hour. Opponents of this increase have argued that the resulting rise in wages will drive the inflation rate up. In fact its impact on wages will probably be negligible, since only a very small proportion of all Kirfandic workers are currently receiving less than KD5.50 per hour. Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument? A.        Most people in Kirlandia who are currently earning the minimum wage have been employed at their current jobs for less than a year. B.        Some firms in Kirlandia have paid workers considerably less than KD5.00 per hour, in violation of Kirlandic employment regulations. C.        Many businesses hire trainees at or near the minimum wage but must reward trained workers by keeping their pay levels above the pay level of trainees. D.        The greatest growth in Kirlandia’s economy in recent years has been in those sectors where workers earn wages that tend to be much higher than the minimum wage. E.        The current minimum wage is insufficient for a worker holding only one job to earn enough to support a family, even when working full time at that job.

首先分析一下题干：
Facts：1. K市的合法的最低工资要从5块涨到5.5块
2. 反对者认为这个法律会导致工资水平增高，从而导致inflation
3. 目前只有很小的一部分工人工资在5.5块以下
Conclusion:
这个涨最低工资的法律不会导致工资水平的升高
问题问的是：
加上什么条件会削弱facts==》conclusion的逻辑

如果要削弱argument，也就是说这个法律会导致工资的升高. C选项正确：因为这些trainnee就是facts 3中提到的工资在5.5块以下的人，假设他们占总工作人数的1%，那么其他工资本来就在5.5或者5.5以上的人占到99%。一旦新的法律通过了，那么1%的trainee工资变成了5.5左右，而剩下的99%的人因为工资必须比这些trainee要高（must reward trained workers by keeping their pay levels above the pay level of trainees），他们中原来工资在5.5左右的，也会相应上涨。因为对于这一部分人，题目中没有提到他们是很小的一部分，有可能他们是占到很大一部分的。因此，会导致整体工资水平上升。




举个例子来讲：


目前的状况
1%的人 5左右的工资
30%的人 5.5左右的工资
69%的人 远高于5.5的工资

新的法律以后：
1%的人  5.5的工资
30%的人  5.8的工资（因为必须要比trainee高）
69%的人 可能涨，可能不变（反正以前就远高于5.5）
这样子导致31%的人工资都涨了，所以这个法律还是有点用的，哈哈