各位大神，麻烦解决一下一道题目

wbdog

Urban planner: When a city loses population due to migration, property taxes in that city tend to rise. This is because there are then fewer residents paying to maintain an infrastructure that was designed to support more people. Rising property taxes, in turn, drive more residents away, compounding the problem. Since the city of Stonebridge is starting to lose population, the city government should therefore refrain from raising property taxes.

Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the urban planner`s argument?

• AIf Stonebridge does not raise taxes on its residents to maintain its infrastructure, the city will become much less attractive to live in as that infrastructure decays.
• BStonebridge at present benefits from grants provided by the national government to help maintain certain parts of its infrastructure.
• CIf there is a small increase in property taxes in Stonebridge and a slightly larger proportion of total revenue than at present is allocated to infrastructure maintenance, the funding will be adequate for that purpose.
• DDemographers project that the population of a region that includes Stonebridge will start to increase substantially within the next several years.
• EThe property taxes in Stonebridge are significantly lower than those in many larger cities.
• 这个题目我是选对了，答案为A，但是我对于C还是犹豫不决的，麻烦大神，帮我解释一下C选项为啥不对？错误在哪里？或者因为什么点，把C排除的？感谢你
  

wbdog

麻烦大神回答一下，特别纠结，这个C选项真是懵逼

wbdog

跪求了，麻烦好心人，解答一下

L.M.

好像是OG V分册上的题吧。。。当时我也蒙圈了一阵子，说一下我的理解吧，不一定对，供LZ参考：

首先，还是一板一眼地分析下材料。这个argument部分归纳出来就是这个意思：
1.人口减少 -> 更少的人需要支付不变的infrastructure费用 -> 税率提升 -> 人口继续减少（恶性循环）
2.因此，避免恶性循环，我们不能增税率。

3.题目要求我们找出理由weaken argument，也就是找出一个提升税率的必要性或者不提升税率的恶果。

A：如果没有提税率，infrastructure会恶化，就更没人来住了。提出了不提税率的一个恶果，符合题目的要求。

C：经过一顿操作后，那些资金就足够了。这顿操作包括：小小地提升税率，然后比现在稍多一部分的总收入用于infrastructure。缩句，提升税率后资金就足够了。我觉得是把材料又给复读了一遍，是没有用的。

B选项的转移支付、D选项的未来增人口、E选项的同比其他城市情况都没有说明与当下人口数量、以及增加税率的关联。这么一看我觉得还是选A。

贝西文迅

Mark一下！