kui-cr-8/11-1

likui

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 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?

1. The government collects no taxes on assistance it provides to unemployed individuals and their families.


2. Neighboring countries with laws that mandate the minimum wage an employer must pay an employee have higher unemployment rates than Ledland currently has


3. People who are employed and look for a new job tend to get higher-paying jobs than job seekers who are unemployed.


4. The yearly amount unemployed people receive from government assistance is less than the yearly income that the government defines as the poverty level.


5. People sometimes accept jobs that pay relatively little simply because they enjoy the work.

参考答案：C

我不解，C说的是People who are employed，而题目中the argument是unemployed people will have no financial incentive to accept jobs that would entitle them to the supplement. 那么C就无法weaken the argument了。

我觉得However,---. Therefore,---. 有个因果的关系。题目改成Therefore, employed people will have no financial incentive--- 选C才比较合理。

[此贴子已经被作者于2005-8-11 21:05:31编辑过]

howardwang

C应该是对的。C也说了People who are unemployed.

题干的结论是unemployed people will have no financial incentive to accept jobs 。

而C的意思是，当要找一个新的薪水更高的工作时，有工作的人（不管什么工作）比没有工作的人更有优势。

正因如此，结论中have no （not any）financial incentive to accept jobs .受到削弱。

v22

凭感觉选了C，但是不太说得出逻辑推理，只是用排除

NN说说把

likui

howardwang说得对，应该是有工作者[在追求高薪上优势]是失业者的一个incentive ，因为还是围绕着薪水，那就是financial incentive

失业者如果要在追求[高薪]上有优势，就必须先就业，再图之。